Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Cal To Furlough 800 If T/a Fails

  • Thread starter Thread starter tie1on
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 15

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Boeingman, are you suggesting that you might get one of these perhaps?
Statement by the United Master Executive Council
Of the Air Line Pilots Association

Regarding Top Executives At UAL

Accepting Six-Figure

Success Sharing Payments



March 17, 2005


"Yesterday’s announcement regarding the 2004 success sharing payments totaling $1.3 million to top executives at United Airlines comes at a time when our pilots and their families are adjusting to life after facing additional staggering wage cuts. It also comes as pilots and other employees stand at the precipice of having their hard-earned pensions terminated. It is difficult to understand how management could not anticipate that these payments would be perceived as anything other than a massive grab while their employees are struggling to make ends meet.



"By accepting these success sharing payments, senior management missed an opportunity to demonstrate true leadership to the airline's workforce at a critical financial juncture in our history. The pilots of United Airlines, time and again, have responsibly stepped up to painful wage concessions and changes to their work environment for the company’s survival. For senior management to accept these six-figure payments during such a distressful time demonstrates detachment from the financial realities that each and every United employee faces daily."


See an IAM / AMFA strike coming?
 
And like everyone else, "we are so disappointed", but what are they going to do?
Nothing! Just like the pilots at AA, NWA,DAL, and who could forget U (Chris Bebees hotline after 9-11 "Not one nickel, not one job").

So the pilage continues, SERPs remain in place, managers continue to get bonuses, and we are told that because the company refuses to sell their product for what it costs we should continue to "sacrifice".

I am not sure I agree with the UAL mecs "responsible" position. It sounds more like "lunacy".

AA
 
Boeingman said:
I wrote a fairly long list of real problems with this TA and decided not to make them public. If you can prove you're a CO pilot, ask me for a PM and I'll send it to you.

I ask that anyone who feels the need to vote for this TA ask themself a question.

When the management starts taking millions out of the company in 2006
for bonuses and god knows what else, how are you going to feel working under a substandard contract (compared even to C97) for the next several years?

No disrespect ment, but I don't need a list of things wrong with this TA. I've got one of my own and its quite extensive.

The question is this: Why should I believe you when you say that a rejection of this POS will not bring a bigger POS. This one is bad enough, I don't even want to imagine what one with another 120 mil in cuts will bring.

We all have been fore warned by a very credible source. Mike Abrahms our ALPA national lead negotiating counsel that in this particular situation rejecting this TA will get us a worse deal. I don't have to repeat his experience level and credentials again I'm sure you've allready seen it.

Tell me why you believe that sending this crap back won't get us and even bigger POS that doesn't even contain the little gains we were able to get. Who is your source? What's his or her knowledge level and bargaining experience? Has he or she been battling against Mike Campbell over the past 20 years like Mike Abrahms? Has he or she been negotiating LABOR contracts for longer than you've been at CAL pilot?

Right now Mike Abrahms' opinion is the most credible I have found. I would LOVE to hear from a credible expert that we can send this POS back to the company with a BS stamp across the front. And not lose an additional 50% like the Delta pilots. However, I won't belive the ramblings of a self appointed expert just because I want to believe it. Show me some credentials and I'll listen.
 
SuperFLUF said:
No disrespect ment, but I don't need a list of things wrong with this TA. I've got one of my own and its quite extensive.

The question is this: Why should I believe you when you say that a rejection of this POS will not bring a bigger POS. This one is bad enough, I don't even want to imagine what one with another 120 mil in cuts will bring.

We all have been fore warned by a very credible source. Mike Abrahms our ALPA national lead negotiating counsel that in this particular situation rejecting this TA will get us a worse deal. I don't have to repeat his experience level and credentials again I'm sure you've allready seen it.

Tell me why you believe that sending this crap back won't get us and even bigger POS that doesn't even contain the little gains we were able to get. Who is your source? What's his or her knowledge level and bargaining experience? Has he or she been battling against Mike Campbell over the past 20 years like Mike Abrahms? Has he or she been negotiating LABOR contracts for longer than you've been at CAL pilot?

Right now Mike Abrahms' opinion is the most credible I have found. I would LOVE to hear from a credible expert that we can send this POS back to the company with a BS stamp across the front. And not lose an additional 50% like the Delta pilots. However, I won't belive the ramblings of a self appointed expert just because I want to believe it. Show me some credentials and I'll listen.


Fluf

Have you had anyone explain satisfactorily why the 735's are able to be put on the market? Remember whenever this issue was brought up before to the company, their reply was "we can not do anything with the aircraft, we are locked into the leases". Does this change not sound suspect to you?

When 2011 or 2012 approached with stagnant negotiations and the company picks it's threats and dire predictions du jour, what will you excuse be then for voting down a TA? I say that because history has shown how negotiations transpire at CO. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. How many times must the CAL pilots be fools?

I do not dispute the company needs relief. It is not a question of getting a "better" deal per se, but having a deal that actually mirrors the promises made and returned in full by the union. The question is, in it's entirety getting a deal that is truly fair, properly written and equitable from every person at the company. From LK down to the guy who cleans the toilets on the graveyard shift. Speaking of properly written, are you satisfied voting on an agreement that has language missing and in other cases being updated by the union after voting has started?

If it feels like a kick in the crotch it is a kick in the crotch. Just because you are being told to live the pain doesn't make it right. I guarantee you that management will be back for more no matter what the outcome of this TA is.

All said and done I respect anyone for their decision. After the dust and fear is settled, you better be dang well prepared to live with the consequences, from either side of the fence. But you should look at your own extensive list and ask yourself "should none of the threats come to pass and I see huge bonuses for management starting next year after other employees snap back...how will I feel coming to work?"

When 2006 rolls around and you are watching management feeding at the financial trough, just remember what I said. One who will not have to work under the contract but who has been around long enough to see a snow job in the making.

BTW, I had 7 people take this "rambling self appointed expert" up on my offer.
 
Last edited:
Mugs said:

Boeingman, are you suggesting that you might get one of these perhaps



Yes, no doubt and then some.


Mugs said:
See an IAM / AMFA strike coming?

Yes. I don't know what else it is going to take to get senior management with all these carriers to wake up and stop relying on labor to finance their incompetence and mistakes. It will also send a message to the bankruptcy courts that they can push people only so far.

ALPA needs to wake up and get of it's ass. Pandering to creditors and financial markets to gut our contracts needs to cease now. The results are evident. UAL/DAL/NWA concessions round 2 will turn into 3, 4 and continue until this industry becomes a D scale pay and benefit category career.

This has been a mangement wet dream.
 
Last edited:
As long as pilots are willing to keep on giving management will keep on asking all the while pricing there product below what it costs in order to keep on playing the game of who will be the last man standing. Why is this rocket science for some people. I don't need to hear Mike Campbell or Mike Abrahms or any so called ALPA expert tell me that I need to take it up the @ss. They aren't going to live under this contract and they aren't going to be feeding my family.
 
Last edited:
As long as pilots are willing to keep on giving management will keep on asking all the while pricing there product below what it costs in order to keep on playing the game of who will be the last man standing. Why is this rocket science for some people.

What is your solution? What can CAL do right now to improve the situation w/o asking for more cuts?
 
OK don't listen then. Its your choice.
If this TA is rejected and you are right then the gamble pays off. If this TA is rejected and the experts are right then you will be feeding your family with even less. Are you just being stubborn or are you truly putting your family first? We'll see.

If you were to go to the doctor with chest pains would you go to a cardiologist or go see some guy who's watched a lot of the discovery health channel for advice?

Its your call.

PS you may want to actually educate yourself on what's going on. Mike Campbell is the comany's negotiating counsel. I certainly hope that you don't listen to him.
 
Last edited:
skykid said:
What is your solution? What can CAL do right now to improve the situation w/o asking for more cuts?

How about for starters replacing continually oversold RJ's with some of those 500's for increased revenue and less pissed off passengers.

Increasing utilization on the fleet. Especially the narrowbodies.

Increasing the fares on markets we have a monopoly on. Latin America for example.

Increasing the fares on routes that are continually oversold.

Realigning management salaries to the industry norm.
 
Last edited:
skykid said:
What is your solution? What can CAL do right now to improve the situation w/o asking for more cuts?

Well that's just more of the circular logic pattern. Three years ago everyone said "you can't shrink to profitability"

Now they say "how can they be expanding and say they are losing money"

Its childish logic.
 
SuperFLUF said:
Well that's just more of the circular logic pattern. Three years ago everyone said "you can't shrink to profitability"

Now they say "how can they be expanding and say they are losing money"

Its childish logic.


Well they tried the to shrink to profitability and that did not work sooo now they figure what the hell lets grow the airline and see what happens.

I think the vote will pass...just look at the history at Continental. The MEC should go though. Scandle at the top scandle at the top.

Ohh what do I know I left
 
Here's the problem - the industry has changed for good, and that unfortunately includes compensation levels, to include pensions. B-man lists realigning mgt salaries to the industry norm - that would be a great start, but your salaries are coming down too. I think the "legacies" not in Ch11 have at least 2 more rounds of concessions coming.

UPS and FedEx won't be insulated from the changes either. They will continue to have better job security in my opinion, but just wait and see what kind of pressure is put them to align with passenger airline compensation.
 
SuperFLUF, I'm not sure you have read this before, but this was posted on Calforums. Very good reading and has already changed two captains mind's that I flew with last week and this week. I'm not telling you to change your mind, but I think you will reconsider your vote after reading this.



Fear Is The Great Manipulator

It is a primal instinct, a lower brain function that served as an early warning system against danger. It is a base emotion, which bypasses the higher brain functions of reason and rational thought. This is what makes it so effective when trying to manipulate generally better-educated individuals who may be resistant to your cause or arguments. Whether it may be fear of furloughs. Fear of more severe cut later if we don’t capitulate now or just fear of the unknown.

It has been said that the best way to deal with your fears is to face them down in the cold harsh light of day. So let’s look at the menu of fear, which the company has prepared and our union leadership has eagerly served up for us.

First, they say ”there is no better deal waiting after this one”. If you have the temerity to turn this down then you will regret it. Ok, not very subtle but it hits you in the gut and shakes your confidence. Really though it’s just a highly aggressive way of saying “I really don’t want to negotiate”. Not that “I won’t negotiate”. After all what businessperson would ever make you a first and only offer without a fall back position? That strategy in it’s self would be bad business. They are gambling based on your past behavior that your mindset is such that you feel small and insignificant and have far more to lose then they do. CAL just invested a fortune in capital improvements in both IAH and EWR. Furthermore they were just awarded Beijing, which some analysts believe is worth a hundred million a year in revenue. They have a lucrative deal with the Nigerian government for partial cost protected service to Lagos. Does this sound like a company that will just fold up its tent and go home over a few minor details in how it gets it’s $213 million dollars from the pilots?

Second “We will go into cash conservation mode”. Well pardon me but isn’t that what we’ve been doing for some time now? Or has there been some great orgy of lavish spending going on since 9/11? The only specific details they have proffered here are canceling the B787 orders and the B757-300 leases. Well we are only one of a few airlines that operate the B757-300’s and I wonder exactly just what other demand Boeing has for those leases. We’ve gone a long way for Boeing by making them our sole supplier. It wouldn’t do very much for their image or business if we shriveled up and went away. Furthermore if as the company claims the last frontier for revenue expansion is international flying then what sense would it make not to take delivery of the very tools which we need to capture this largess?

Third, the dreaded” furloughs”. I don’t recall any specific threats to furlough pilots. This hand grenade was thrown out more for effect then fact. As I’ve said before. We don’t even have enough pilots to crew our current winter/spring schedule let alone the busy summer season or planned future expansion. Let’s then pile on all of the upcoming retirements as well. The numbers just don’t add up and neither does the threat. The only business plan, which would support furloughs, would be the one to shut the doors permanently.

Fourth, “Our hired experts verify the company is in dire financial condition”. I don’t believe that there are many of us here who would challenge this finding. That being said does this preclude us from working together with the company in good faith to find a more equitable way to provide the needed relief? The pain in this agreement seems to be haphazardly strewn about without any nod towards leveling it’s effects while still providing the needed amount of relief.. While not enthusiastic we are highly motivated participants. I question the good faith of my negotiation “partner” who opens discussions by dictating in advance exactly how much I will be giving up. Offering a deal where the concessions are voluminous, concrete and permanent while the up sides are few, highly conditional and totally beyond my ability to control.

Fifth, Why after three years of stagnation when all the while our NC was on full time flight pay loss, we are suddenly told we only have a small time frame in which to meet the companies demands or suffer the consequences of our failure to act. Some say it was the sudden raise in oil futures others the ruinous actions of our competitors. Is it possible that our highly compensated and much touted management lurches from one crisis to another without any forethought what so ever? Isn’t this exactly the type of challenge for which these highly educated and experienced stars of the business world are born? Please tell me that in the end it doesn’t fall to the overworked and underpaid working stiff to make it all work out.

At the EWR road show our attorney offered up a dramatic monologue. One steeped in fire and brimstone in which he admonished us to not walk in the footsteps of our USAir brethren by failing to heed his advice to accept the companies first offer. It was a very moving delivery although I found myself feeling like it was a closing argument being delivered to a jury by the prosecutor. Hey, wait a minute isn’t this guy my lawyer? Why do I feel like the defendant here? He also said that while he’d rather go into BK court with the letters of protection that they were no guarantee they would be honored. In other words all show and no guaranteed go. We’re paying a pretty big price for so thin a promise.

How does this “all now my way or nothing” gambit benefit our management? Simply put they have everything to gain if it succeeds and little to lose if it fails. If the TA passes it will be a coup of historic proportion by permanently rolling back our pay and benefits in a way that would have made Lorenzo green with jealousy. If the TA fails they still have the option dealing with us in a manner allowing them to capture the same savings without having to totally humiliate us in the process.

This is not just a 45-month contract. We are laying the foundation upon which any succeeding agreement shall be built. For the older guys it’s their sunset contract from which they will have to struggle forth into retirement. For the younger guys it means having to spend their next two to three agreements to recover what those who went before them had already won decades before. Remember fear is an emotion and as some on the other side of this issue are fond of saying. Make your decision rationally without emotion.
 
No, I haven't seen it. I stopped visiting the "crackpipe" when they began charging.

Its a compelling argument. I have been through a couple of contract negotiating cycles in the past and have seen managment attempt to use fear tactics every time. However, when they were making their threats the context was not there. The view out the window did not match the doom & gloom they tried to paint so we called their bluff. Today managment still paints a darker picture than reality, but its not so far off as to dismiss everything they say off-hand.

That post seems as though it was written by a line pilot. The problem I have with trusting in the word of a line pilot is just that. They are a line pilot. A professional pilot. That's what they do and that's their expertise, not finance and not labor negotiation or litigation. In fact, any line pilot,local union rep or even past union leader that I do know still doesn't have the experience and the big picture in the same way "our attorney" (as mentioned in that post) does.

If someone can PROVE to me that he is wrong then I would be happy to vote this POS down. Of course there are no guarantees but it sure seems a long shot to go the other way and I'm not much of a gambler.
 
Last edited:
Fluf:

If the numbers look so bleak, why is the BOD approving and allowing management the ability to go back to the financial feeding trough in 10 months?

If you are willing to subsidize the types of pay outs and bonuses as in the past, then go ahead and vote yes.

If you are willing to wait at least another 7 - 8 years to get even close to C97(don't forget to factor in your loss due to inflation...something our experts didn't bother to mention) then vote yes.

I should also add that our experts and union convienetly forget to mention that loss in A fund dollars is not even included in the total gift and contribution of the TA to the company. Factor this in to your total loss in dollars when you cast that yes ballot.

Take one guess where that money will end up starting next year.

I'm done. I already voted. I will be gone soon, but people like you have the most to lose. Think about it.
 
Last edited:
The BOD thinks they have the best airline managment team. I'm not convinced. Listen to the latest airline analyst presentation on the investors section of the website and the butt kissing of our mgmt. by the analysts will give you a hint of how the BOD is thinking.

I have had my eyes open when it comes to the A fund for a while now. For the past couple years my retirement planning has only been based on PBGC minimums for the A fund. Anyone who thinks there is some way to keep it is living a dream.

So this TA will actually reduce the amount of $$ I have to save toward retirement because of the new B fund.

Good luck in your retirement, its a good time to be getting out.
 
SuperFLUF said:
The BOD thinks they have the best airline managment team. I'm not convinced. Listen to the latest airline analyst presentation on the investors section of the website and the butt kissing of our mgmt. by the analysts will give you a hint of how the BOD is thinking.

The BOD needs to look at the management team at Southwest. The numbers speak for themself.

SuperFLUF said:
I have had my eyes open when it comes to the A fund for a while now. For the past couple years my retirement planning has only been based on PBGC minimums for the A fund. Anyone who thinks there is some way to keep it is living a dream.

Well, wasn't part of the sales pitch for this TA the fact that we will (in the least) keep the frozen A plan? If you're only planing on PBGC mins., I assume you're planning on a bankruptcy and termination of the A plan. If that is the case....why are you voting for a TA that is "designed", "needed" to keep the copany solvent according to the "experts"? At least on the retirement issue alone.

However I do agree with you the A plan will be history .....eventually. The junior guys will never see anything from the plan. But it is a crime to be sold this TA while the obvious is not pointed out. The pilots are contributing far in excess of what the printed figures are due to the frozen A plan. Are we being lied to? I'll let you make that determination.

SuperFLUF said:
So this TA will actually reduce the amount of $$ I have to save toward retirement because of the new B fund.

Fluf, this is really flawed thinking here. If you do believe in the above then you must agree with me that this TA will not stop the company from filing BK and terminating the A plan.

Further, the parameters and trigger points that define what percentage is kicked in not clearly defined in the TA.

SuperFLUF said:
Good luck in your retirement, its a good time to be getting out.

Isn't that the truth.

Look, I'm not telling you to change your vote. I am telling you that you are voting based on emotion and not facts as being presented in it's written format for us to vote on. It is not about getting a better deal. It is about getting the right deal. The right one starts with an accurate accounting of the total givebacks as well as clear defined language, parameters and trigger points.
 
Xtremepilot said:
A route on an RJ that is oversold by 2-5 would not generate the needed revenue to operate a -500. You can have Mexico City back.

The point is, the final bookings stop at a smaller finite amount of seats with RJ's on given routes. There is probably a way to measure the revenue loss from lost bookings due to the small capacity on these aircraft but I have never seen it. Maybe the company should keep track of it. Maybe they already do but I doubt it.

Many cities used to have the 737-500's and carried very high load factors. Now with RJ's limiting them to 50 and sometimes fewer sets due to weight restrictions is a poor use of your fixed capital assets that can capture the potential revenue.

Yes, we should have all of MEX back. It is a high yield market that has always carried good load factors. That is a perfect example.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top