whatitdoing?
Are you awake? Good
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Posts
- 795
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
Countdown to the CAL/UAL TA -- 45 days to go
- Thread starter densoo
- Start date
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
whatitdoing?
Are you awake? Good
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Posts
- 795
Shrek
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2005
- Posts
- 1,640
Tell him Yuppy.....
And why are we even talking about SLI before the JCBA..........
bluechunks
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Posts
- 105
Really? UA needed a narrow-body partner?
SuperFLUF
lazy Mc Donald's pilot
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2003
- Posts
- 639
Really? UA needed a narrow-body partner?
Don't feed the trolls.
Besides CAL wouldn't be a good narrow body partner for UAL,..... CAL's 737 pilots get paid more than the outsourced 70 seat RJ captains.
(in fact, more than UAL's 767 captains)
whatitdoing?
Are you awake? Good
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Posts
- 795
eaglesview
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 5, 2008
- Posts
- 1,350
Whatitdoing, bluechunks and any UAL guys on here spewing a bunch of crap are not helping a damn thing. Last I checked we do not even have a contract nor does it sound like we are even close. MAybe that's where we should spend our energy. What's with all the SLI crap. You all sound like a bunch of east vs west idiots.
Hvy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
- Posts
- 315
Well....we finally found a d*****bag. We probably have a few also.
Hvy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
- Posts
- 315
Really? UA needed a narrow-body partner?
Out of line. We really don't need that. Both sides have jerks...don't be one of them.
Shrek
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2005
- Posts
- 1,640
Especially when an arbitrator is going to decide anyways........
They all need football helmets to bang their head against the short bus windows.
Scrapdog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2006
- Posts
- 1,127
Shrek, I know you want to hug, kiss, and make things all better - but in all honesty, this 747 pay and category garbage is the big hurdle to us pressing forward with the JCBA - and 100% instituted from the UAL side. It's an unfortunate sh*tty move, and it hurts us all.
As far as my "narrow-body" airline, I'll take it anyday. We've got new airplanes and CONFIRMED future deliveries in the very near future. Do you?
Look, I know your airline was great in 2000 and I've heard all the stories about UAL guys with their "screw CAL" pins on the crew bus. Funny how times change huh?
I'm looking forward to when UAL dumps this 747 crap and we can move forward together as a joint entity.
Flyarcticcat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2007
- Posts
- 144
Shrek
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2005
- Posts
- 1,640
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.........nothing more. I am not a rose colored glasses guy - but I am a realist.
We can go round and round about which airline has the bigger doosh-bags or we can work together for a great contract.
I have no idea what the inner workings of the NCs on both sides are. Where did you get this information? If it was anything other than official sources it is suspect to me. We were briefed by the MEC by blast e-mail that there was a discrepency betwwen UAL and CAL NCs proposal for pay. That is all we got.
If what you say is true....in the end the UAL NC will drop the issue - just wait it out. Did you think that maybe the disbanding of pay between types might actually work towards a better paying contract? I understand your point about unintended implications of such short sightedness and when lobbied for by your side - in the end - will go your way. Just understand that it will be give AND take between US as well.
I am afraid that every little leak of information by either side will be turned into a sideshow here and on other forums. It does nobody any good at all.
We have so much more greater battles ahead.......don't peak too early....
On a side note sice EACH side has to ratifiy the JCBATA (say that 3 times fast) - if you don't like it - vote it out and send them back to the table.
Shrek
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2005
- Posts
- 1,640
No it is not......we are negotiating with MGT alone still.
The Transition and Process Agreement (TPA) outlined a timeline that was intended to have a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement (JCBA) completed by October 5. As the ALPA Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC) stated last week and it has said before, this was an ambitious goal but the JNC would not rush into a JCBA for the sake of a deadline. Section 2-K of the TPA also provides for automatic application to the NMB for mediation unless the parties, both management and the ALPA JNC, agree otherwise on October 14.
As October 14 comes into sight, the JNC began considering the addition of a federal National Mediation Board (NMB) mediator. NMB mediation is a useful tool at the appropriate time. If requested too soon, the negotiating process can be less productive for several reasons. The mediator will not likely be able to meet as regularly as the JNC; and while there may be an agreement to continue to meet when the mediator is not available, it is not uncommon for parties to withhold proposals for the benefit of the mediator. After careful consideration and following discussions with the United and Continental MECs this week, the ALPA JNC has agreed to delay its application for mediation to the NMB until December 17, 2010. All parties, including management, have agreed to the December 17 date as the utilization of mediated services is not yet necessary and continuing the negotiating process will serve the best interests of the parties. While the ALPA JNC would have preferred to reach agreement by October 12, the JNC does not consider the delay for mediation as a setback as negotiations continue to progress.
An explanation as to how some of the factors have impacted the progress of the ongoing negotiations includes the following.
First, due to anti-trust regulations prior to the merger closing, management has been unable to discuss, even between the two Companies, the future network or business plan of the new United. This has caused some delays in forthright responses to some of the JNC’s proposals. This is no longer the case post merger closing, and the Company has committed to meet with the JNC and its subject matter experts and provide them with a complete briefing on the aspects of the new airline. The Company has indicated that it needs time to finalize its briefing and this overview will be complete the week of October 25.
Secondly, in the October 1, 2010 Update to the pilots, the JNC stated that nearly all sections of the JCBA have been presented to the Company. The only outstanding sections that have not been passed to the Company are Compensation (Section 3), Duration (Section 25) which is tied to Compensation, Definitions (Section 2), and General (Section 21). The latter two will be held toward the end to admit any final terms or conditions that have not otherwise been included. The ALPA JNC Compensation (Section 3) proposal has not yet been passed to the company since there is currently a lack of consensus on a Compensation proposal from the JNC. The JNC is continuing its work on these final sections. While there has been no consensus reached to date by the JNC concerning a compensation proposal, a process is in place to facilitate resolution.
The JNC has worked together for the past five months on all sections of the contract, and they continue to work very well together for the benefit of the more than 12,500 merged pilots of the new United.
If the JNC decides that negotiations with the Company are no longer fruitful or are losing momentum, they will allow the December 17 trigger to trip an application to the NMB. This date will allow the NMB to act upon the application prior to government shutdown for the Christmas holidays. The JNC will continue to keep its pilots informed of the JCBA’s negotiations and progress
Scrapdog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2006
- Posts
- 1,127
Yes, it is factual data. And it is brought on by the UAL NC. And it is unfortunate because it's a complete power play strictly to enhance the UAL side when the SLI goes to arbitration with negative repurcusions for the CAL pilot group. And it completely hurts all of us.
Are you done crying yet?
Shrek,
Unless I've misunderstood your post, EACH side of the pilot groups does NOT get a vote on a TA, only the respective MECs get a vote. If both the United MEC and The CAL MEC vote for the TA to be presented, it will be presented for one vote of the combined United/CAL pilot group.
If the CAL pilots hate it and the United pilots love it, theoretically a TA could pass with every CAL pilot voting "NO".
All I know is that my "Yes" vote button is broken. It's going to take an industry redefining contract for me to vote "yes".
eaglesview
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 5, 2008
- Posts
- 1,350
This is all getting old fast. Here is reality. UAL ALPA will propose a list that is benefitial to UAL pilots. THAT"S THEIR JOB!!! CO ALPA will propose a list benifitial to CO pilots. THAT"S THEIR JOB.
UAL ALPA....747 should pay more (though I have only heard that on here) Let's "top staple'.........we bring the majority of wide bodies......"career expectations"....
CO..ALPA.... our a/c orders are growth aircraft....relative seniority is the way to go.....furloughed employees don't count....
Both MEC's have a job to do. Both MEC's will present there case to an arbitrator. I do not know why folks are getting there panties all wadded up so early in the process. Let's get a freakin contract first. Keep your eye on the ball!!
Shrek
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2005
- Posts
- 1,640
Maybe my Vietnam Englik is getting bad during my ongoing furlough.........
I meant what you wrote.....
Do you really think that the CAL MEC would approve it - they wouldn't I am sure of it.
BTW - My yes button is broken too
After the SLI is finished we should get both pilot groups together and beat the SNOT out of each other for 2 hours - then go for a few beers and move on. It worked when I played rugby - waddya say - it might actually unify us more than you would think !!
Hvy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
- Posts
- 315
Right on!
Captain X
Who is John Galt?
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2002
- Posts
- 948
How do you propose we get a contract done when half of the JNC has direction to carve out the 744 into it's own (and highest) pay category and the other half knows that doing so has potential SLI implications?
We can't get a contract done until we can make a compensation proposal. Simply stated, we can't make a compensation proposal until we agree on the pay issue.
Yes. The timing of the un-"banding".
Either it should have been a different pay scale long before this JCBA process started, or they should table it until after the SLI is a sealed deal. Doing it now appears to be a seniority grab. It could be they've just been waiting for the opportunity to get a separate scale for the 747, and now that opportunity has arrived. That it happens to be during a JCBA which will affect an SLI may be a coincidence. Whether it is or not does not matter. In front of an arbitrator, the effect will be the same--a top staple.
eaglesview
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 5, 2008
- Posts
- 1,350
The 747 has traditionally always been the highest paid airplane at UAL up until the BK contract. It has a TOG of approx 200,000 LBS more than the 777. (speed/weight formula ring a bell?) The pay issue does not have to be connected to the SLI. Again that's what the arbitrator is for.
The 777 and 767-400 (256 seats in High density config, 235 in Europe config) and 767-200 (174 seats) are banded together at CAL and all pay more than the 747-400 at UAL (except for the first 5 year FO B scale at CAL.)
(By the way our 757-200 has 175 seats and our 757-300 has 216 seats and both pay less than the 767-200...I wasn't on property for that vote:erm
The 777 and 747-400 are currently banded together at UAL.
Well, I'm certainly against any one group trying to "seniority grab", whether it be the top OR the bottom of the lists.
IAHERJ
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2002
- Posts
- 930
Not to get off subject but how in the Hell do you pack 244 passengers in a 763 when we only carry 235 in our European 764's? And I think most of our 777's hold 285 now and I think they are pretty comfortable so the UAL 777's must really be plush with only 258 seats(3 class?). Not understanding why we can't do what Delta has done and put the 747 alongside the 777 for pay. After the 5 year fence is taken down, let's get that 747 pay up another 10% minimum. Just my thoughts......
If the only argument the UAL guys have for the SLI is that "we bring more wide body aircraft", the UAL guys are in big trouble.
CAL has 737s that pay more than all of the UAL 767s.
With the 747 pay issue, we can't "get a freakin' contract first" because we can't put up a Section 3 proposal until that issue is resolved. After the SLI is complete, I totally agree that the 747 should have a higher pay structure.
Last edited:
eaglesview
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 5, 2008
- Posts
- 1,350
You should go into politics. You bring down half a quote then use it out of context to make your invalid point.
I am quite sure you would like to address the 747 issue after the SLI. Rather predictable.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
