Latest on UAL recalls

[spinup]

NO, they won't. You will never get that back.

They will simply recall/hire less, and it will be on a permanent basis. Career progression will stagnate, based on the fewer bodies.

This TA IS manpower positive, your assertion to the contrary is innacurate.

Its a huge give, that you won't be able to get back, and it is MOST important for flexibility in people's lives. Now if they want to give the pay rates from the previous contract in return for that... well that is a different animal.

I'm not sure how you can assert that this TA is a "huge give." There are some gives, just like C2000, but the gains ABSOLUTELY outweigh the gives.

There is NO SUCH THING AS AN EASY GIVE. Everything that is "easy" is costing you something else.

No way will the company give us a perfect TA that involves no gives. Heck, we can't even achieve that in full blown section 6 negotiations.

There is no such thing as a TEMPORARY give either, just like taxes, once in place you never get rid of them. Don't believe me? Look at taxes on the turnpikes/bridges etc....

It IS contractually temporary. Look, at the end of the day I'm as mad as you and I KNOW we want the same thing. This TA solves a lot of problems that can be taken of the table in oh-nine.

As difficult as it is, this is one of those times emotion needs to be checked. Add the pluses and minuses, make a calculated decision.

Wino

Take care, I look foward to seeing you out on the line.

 

[spinup]

I would agree with you IF it came with 1:3.5 rigs like DAL has AND 3:15 per day for vacation like DAL has. Going from lookback to 1:4 is no real prize at all. Allowing to go below 65 ONLY if we give vacation at 2.8 per day is COMPLETELY CONCESSIONARY along with just about every other aspect of this agreement. I don't think you grasp what we're saying here. It's not what we're getting rid of, it's what we're reverting to. You made the statement, "This has nothing to do with the 2.8. When we get 2.8 increased, this will increase too." Well, come back with a TA that has 2.8 increased. Come back with a TA that has 1:3.5. Do that and we're getting somewhere, then it's an agreement that both sides get and give. Right now we give and the company gets. Why? Because what we're reverting to is no better than what we have.

I agree that Skynet TT will determine trip trades from here on out and that it has nothing to do with this agreement. What I also know is that in the 33 years my father worked here the ONLY time he saw his quality of life deteriorate was when they went to 1:3.5 from 1:3. I also know that the only time I say my quality of life deteriorate (due to nothing I did) was when rigs deteriorated further to 1:4.

Although this agreement ALLOWS for more efficiency, it does not PENALIZE the company for being innefficient. Until I see that, I'm not giving them a thing.

Too many assumptions and opinions to respond to at this late hour. Please call your Rep.

 

[spinup]

OK, maybe a quickie.

I would agree with you IF it came with 1:3.5 rigs like DAL has AND 3:15 per day for vacation like DAL has. Going from lookback to 1:4 is no real prize at all.

Bringing LCO to mainline work rules IS a REAL prize.

Allowing to go below 65 ONLY if we give vacation at 2.8 per day is COMPLETELY CONCESSIONARY

Affects 5% of the pilot force, less when Skynet TT goes into effect. Month line guarentee positively affects 100% of the 5%.

along with just about every other aspect of this agreement.

Inaccurate, back this up if you can.

I don't think you grasp what we're saying here. It's not what we're getting rid of, it's what we're reverting to.

Reverting to??? Worse than the agreement we have???

You made the statement, "This has nothing to do with the 2.8. When we get 2.8 increased, this will increase too." Well, come back with a TA that has 2.8 increased.

Do you think this will be easier or harder to negotiate for if at the same time we are STILL negotiating for the plusses in this TA?.

Come back with a TA that has 1:3.5. Do that and we're getting somewhere, then it's an agreement that both sides get and give. Right now we give and the company gets. Why? Because what we're reverting to is no better than what we have.

Reverting to, currently the LCO has NO RIGS!!!

I agree that Skynet TT will determine trip trades from here on out and that it has nothing to do with this agreement.

Then why the Hard-on for the 65 hr floor?

What I also know is that in the 33 years my father worked here the ONLY time he saw his quality of life deteriorate was when they went to 1:3.5 from 1:3.

All due respect, this is not your Fathers situation, its ours. Nothing is static and though your Father had extreme situations during his career, your comparing incomparable situations.

I also know that the only time I say my quality of life deteriorate (due to nothing I did) was when rigs deteriorated further to 1:4.

We are not talking about deteriorating rigs on the LCO, we are talking about improving them. Based on this your logic is flawed.

Although this agreement ALLOWS for more efficiency,

Correct, in regard to crew compensation.

it does not PENALIZE the company for being inefficient.

Incorrect.

Until I see that, I'm not giving them a thing.

Emotional.

 

[spinup]

Deleted

 

[Andy]

So what does happen after Oct 07? Will there have to be a new TA?

Huggy, the WB increases in hours, as written in the TA, is temporary with an expiry of Oct 07. Here's the section:

2. Temporary Modifications

A. Temporary increased widebody caps - Amend Sections 5-B, 20-C, 20-H and any
related sections of the Agreement to reflect a ninety-six (96) hour limit for the B747-400
and B777 fleets and a ninety-two (92) hour limit for the B767/757 fleet. For the
A320/319 and B737-300/500 fleets, the provisions of Section 5-B will remain
unchanged.

B. Temporary Bank accrual at 96 hours - All references to Bank accrual and payout in
Sections 3-B-7, 3-I, 3-I-3, 3-I-5 and 3-I-7 will be applicable for all fleets and the pay
credit value will be modified to ninety-six (96) hours through the end of the October
2007 bid month.

Duration: The provisions of Part II of this Agreement become effective upon an agreed
upon implementation schedule and once implemented, will remain in effect until
programming for the flexible cap provisions in Section 1-N, above, is completed. If
programming has not been completed prior to the opening of November 2007 schedule
bidding, effective October 31, 2007, the maximum flight time limitations stated in
Section 5-B, 20-C, 20-H and throughout the Agreement will be reduced to eighty-nine
(89) hours for all fleets until such time as the flexible cap provisions are implemented for
a given bid month.




I'll admit that the TA is a pain in the keister to read, but I think that there are a lot of incorrect statements about the TA.
The BIG benefit from this TA is that the LCO will have the same work rules as the WB fleet. That's HUGE. We can either take it now, or waste a huge amount of negotiating capital getting that fixed on the next contract.
The only negative that I heard before the TA was published is the 50 hr floor being raised to 65, which screwed over the WB guys for trip trading purposes since they have high credit trips and need to drop below 65 in order to do a lot of trip trading.
Granted, we want more. We deserve more. A LOT MORE. But I'm not going to turn down a ham and cheese sandwich because I want a seven course filet mignon dinner. I'll take the sandwich and as soon as I'm done eating it, I'll be back looking for more.
We aren't going to get everything back in one fell swoop, but we can take a bit back at a time.

 

[Huggyu2]

Thanks. As you can tell, I haven't read the TA in it's entirety with a detail-oriented mindset yet, but will do so soon.

 

[Yuppyguppy]

can you bid down to 89 hrs if u are a line holder?

 

[Andy]

can you bid down to 89 hrs if u are a line holder?

You can only go above 89 if you are a volunteer. You have the option of asking for more flight time @ 30 minute increments. From the TA:

N. Flexible caps – Modify all applicable contract provisions to reflect an eighty-nine
(89) hour cap. Pilot may voluntarily select a higher cap on a monthly basis from eightynine
(89) to ninety-five (95) hours, in thirty (30) minute increments. Pilot may increase or
decrease this value at any time during the month, as long as it remains at or above 89
actual hours and at least 1 hour greater than his current actual hour projection.



I'll be the first to admit that this thing has warts on it. However, we get a lot out of the deal. I think that improving the LCO QOL is a HUGE gift from the company. Keep in mind that I'm 767FO on mil leave, so any LCO gains will have zero effect on me.

 

[Yuppyguppy]

thx for the info

 

[Huggyu2]

Council 34 (SFO) just voted to direct the officers to disapprove the AIP, and to work to get rid of the current Negotiating Committee, whom they say have lost touch with the members.

 

[spinup]

I'd have to do some research, but I think this is old news and happened while still in the AIP stage. Interestingly, there was not a no-confidence vote directed at ALPA E&FA or the SCC. They are on the same sheet of music as the Negotiating Committee. Thier actions shouldn't be overly surprising given C34 was the only outright holdout regarding Furloughee longevity.

Take care...

 

[Huggyu2]

I'm ignorant on the furlough longevity issue: was it that they insisted on giving furloughees credit for longevity?

 

[spinup]

Unfortunately C34 shot down the resolution directing the MEC to work toward longevity credit for the furloughees. C11 is in the process of working through this resolution, as I understand it. It passed C12, C57, and C33.

Someone please correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[Plunder Hound]

Whats up with C34? They don't have any furloughees?

Anybody know what went unfilled in the last bid? Trying to time my return.

 

[Huggyu2]

Unbelievable! If figured C34 was one of the more "militant" councils when it came to working for "snapbacks".

 

[Jonny Sacko]

Hey fellas, I sure don't want to step on anyone's toes, but c'mon. tilton taking that bonus, I'd say "nothing but a >45% or whatever percent you think is right. Starting with the "I'll take a cheese sandwich" sends the message you're not pissed beyond belief. I'm not there or in your shoes, it's just an outsiders perspective. At CAL, our guys are mad as hell and are saying we are prepared and willing to stop this thing especially if a major bonus pops up.

As I said, good luck, I'm sure you'll get the best you can, but I sure hope this time around we all get back enough to clean up for the past wrongs.

 

[spinup]

Thanks for the well wishing; it’s going to be a long road. When it comes to this TA, either it is a net positive for the pilot group or its not. If it is, and we turn it down, Tilton will still have his millions. That may not be the best course, and is weighted heavily on an emotional response. As a fact, there is a lot of leverage in this TA, which can be used not only in oh-nine, but also in the years leading up to oh-nine.

Importantly, this TA will not satisfy one single pilot regarding the state of our contract. This is not the end, this is a step. I understand your perspective, and many on the property share it. It’s a question of how much leverage we think we have now, and how big a gamble we are willing to take. The company may or may not come back to the table if we turn this down.

One thing is for sure; acceptance of this TA WILL NOT subdue this pilot group.

Take care

 

[Skater]

Does anyone know what hire date the are currently recalling to. I was a Jun 99 hire and bypassed back in Dec 05. Just wondered when I would have to make a final decision. Thanks.

 

[Getter]

Does anyone know what hire date the are currently recalling to. I was a Jun 99 hire and bypassed back in Dec 05. Just wondered when I would have to make a final decision. Thanks.

Just got this email today:

To all furloughees,

United has announced recall classes for 9 April and 7 May 2007 and has mailed another 55 “Final Recall Offers” to fill training positions in these two classes. There are an additional 29 pilots “voluntarily” coming off bypass for these two classes and another 11 Furloughees returning from LOA who will be attending these two recall classes as well. Due to the number of Furloughees who are returning from LOA during the next few months the other two planned recall classes for April and May will now be stand alone “Returning Pilot Training” (RPT) classes for Furloughees. Further recall class dates for the summer have yet to be determined.

The following are the recall statistics as of 28 March 2007:

As of the 26 March 2007 recall class:
Recalled - Active Status 752 Total in 2007 138
Recalled – LOA 537
Bypassed 715
Resigned (coming up the list) 108
Resigned (going down the list) 31
Retired (over age 60) 2
Deceased 3

Including the 9 April and 7 May 2007 recall classes:
Total Offered Recall 2172
Total Furlough Status 0 (have not been offered recall)
Total Offered “Final Recall” 154
Totals to date:
Recalled - Active or Accepted 789 36.3%
Recalled - LOA or LOA upon return 548 25.2%
Bypassed 663 30.5%
Resigned, Retired or Deceased 143 6.6%


The “Recall Bypass Seniority List” has been updated and is available on the Furlough – Recall Info page of the UAL MEC website, which you can access by logging on to http://crewroom.alpa.org.

Bob N. has reported that a large percentage of those resigning while working back up the list are resigned due to non-response. This is an acceptable form of resignation under the terms of the contract; however, we are still concerned that there may be pilots who may unintentionally resign in this fashion due to a “bad address”. If you did not receive the “Recall Bypass Expiration Letter” that was mailed to you in mid December 2006, your initial recall offer or have any change in contact information you should contact Bob N. (with an address update if you are still interested in returning to United. If your final recall offer is returned due to a bad address or United does not receive “Notice of intent to accept offer of recall” within 14 days after receipt, by anyone, at the address on file, you will “not be entitled to recall as provided in Paragraph 7-A of this Section and shall forfeit all seniority...” (Section 7-D).

 

[Skater]

I got that email also. But I couldn't find anywhere in there that said what original class date they have offered recall to for final yes or no. Any info would be appreciated.