UAL Contract 2003 & LOA 05-01?

[Captain X]

Two questions:

1. Was UAL Contract 2003 ratified by pilot vote or imposed by a bankruptcy court?
2. Was LOA 05-01 (Bankruptcy Exit Agreement) ratified by pilot vote, MEC-ratified, or imposed by a bankruptcy court?

TIA

 

[Captain X]

Seriously? No one knows the answers to these questions?

 

[Captain X]

Hmmm...now I'm starting to think guys are just afraid to answer.

 

[Abernathy]

Contract 2003 was ratified by pilot vote from what I understand.

 

[Full of LUV]

Ratified....

Two questions:

1. Was UAL Contract 2003 ratified by pilot vote or imposed by a bankruptcy court?
2. Was LOA 05-01 (Bankruptcy Exit Agreement) ratified by pilot vote, MEC-ratified, or imposed by a bankruptcy court?

TIA

Of course they are ratified, but in front of a BK judge. Nobody knew back then quite what the judge would give the company if it went all the way to the point of imposed contract (allowed in BK court). So in the last hours the pilots negotiated the best they could get. BTW, the company also didn't know what the judge would go for, so there is risk both ways in letting the court decide.
Obviously you go from contract 2001 to 2003 was a major painful giveback for a proud, unified group. Hopefully they will be able to get most of it back.

 

[Flopgut]

When exactly was the 744 banded to the 777?

 

[Captain X]

Of course they are ratified, but in front of a BK judge. Nobody knew back then quite what the judge would give the company if it went all the way to the point of imposed contract (allowed in BK court).

I know they are ratified. The question was if they were ratified by the pilots or imposed by a judge. Nothing gets "ratified in front of a bankruptcy judge." Either the pilot group voted on the deal or it was imposed by a judge.

I assume what you are saying is that they voted FOR it under the unknown threat of what could potentially happen if a BK judge did impose a contract via bankruptcy.

So in the last hours the pilots negotiated the best they could get. BTW, the company also didn't know what the judge would go for, so there is risk both ways in letting the court decide.

OK, so that answers the question of Contract 2003, which has the 744 and 777 were banded together (for the first time I believe), and was passed by a majority of the pilots; albeit under threat of the unknown.

I'm assuming LOAs at the UAL MEC are either voted on by the pilot group or is it MEC ratification?

 

[ualdriver]

I know they are ratified. The question was if they were ratified by the pilots or imposed by a judge. Nothing gets "ratified in front of a bankruptcy judge." Either the pilot group voted on the deal or it was imposed by a judge.

I assume what you are saying is that they voted FOR it under the unknown threat of what could potentially happen if a BK judge did impose a contract via bankruptcy.

OK, so that answers the question of Contract 2003, which has the 744 and 777 were banded together (for the first time I believe), and was passed by a majority of the pilots; albeit under threat of the unknown.

I'm assuming LOAs at the UAL MEC are either voted on by the pilot group or is it MEC ratification?

What is the point of asking these questions? None of us have answered because we assume your point is that the UA pilots "voted" for something (like banding) during bankruptcy so therefore we shouldn't be against it now. Correct? Then the bomb throwers pile on with the "you guys caved, you should have taken it to the judge, etc., etc.". Been there, done that.

If your question is about aircraft banding, it was one of the many concessions we had to make during bankruptcy.

 

[Captain X]

What is the point of asking these questions? None of us have answered because we assume your point is that the UA pilots "voted" for something (like banding) during bankruptcy so therefore we shouldn't be against it now. Correct? Then the bomb throwers pile on with the "you guys caved, you should have taken it to the judge, etc., etc.". Been there, done that

If your question is about aircraft banding, it was one of the many concessions we had to make during bankruptcy.

I think you get the point.

I admit, I honestly give the UAL guys a "pass" for the 2003 contract vote and the fact the aircraft were banded together then. I get that.

My issue is more with the Bankruptcy Exit LOA and why the snapback wasn't attained then. There was no "threat" of bankruptcy then. The leverage was more in the pilot groups hands. IOW, I can get why UAL guys "caved" on the contract, but for the life of me can't figure out why on the LOA

Couple that with fact that the new UAL combined fleet will have 3X as many 777s than 744s, the 744s will not be around as long, and the overall pay effect will benefit more pilots vs just those staffed on the 744. This is what makes the 744 issue look more like a seniority grab to those that are arguing that.

I can't for the life of me see why we would exhaust negotiating capital to benefit less than 10% of the pilot group when we could potentially benefit 2-3X as many.

I'm just sayin'.

 

[Flopgut]

UALdriver: When a UAL pilot refers to "ERP 1", what is that?