Latest on UAL recalls

[Sonny Crockett]

How bout the 66.7% pay increase??

Exactly!

Tilton is getting his....and we get $%#@

 

[Sonny Crockett]

This pretty much sums it up....

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.

 

[Yuppyguppy]

39.7mil where is my barf bag??

 

[Huggyu2]

I see this as an easy takeback when the company needs to reduce block hours.

Has there been an "easy takeback" in the last few years? If the company is pushing for this now, it's obviously a big issue for them. I do see the company's point: it keeps them from having to hire as many pilots, getting more productivity out of the ones they have. But that's probably one of the biggest QOL issues for me. I'd rather negotiate on other issues, not this one.

 

[Andy]

How bout the 66.7% pay increase??

That's not grounded in reality. Gotta take what you can get. We're getting some stuff permanently in exchange for (mostly) temporary gives.

 

[Andy]

Has there been an "easy takeback" in the last few years? If the company is pushing for this now, it's obviously a big issue for them. I do see the company's point: it keeps them from having to hire as many pilots, getting more productivity out of the ones they have. But that's probably one of the biggest QOL issues for me. I'd rather negotiate on other issues, not this one.

You can bet that the company will be more than willing to drop the floor back to 50 when we're fat on pilots. ... and that day will come again.

 

[Wino]

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.

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.

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

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....

Wino

 

[Andy]

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....

So when it says in the TA that those temporary gives expire Oct 07, they really won't expire? Um, OK.

 

[Huggyu2]

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

 

[spinup]

No, that provision is in this TA.

 

[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.