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?

 

[flyguppy]

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'.

But what you're not "just sayin' " is the seniority grab is coming from the CAL side.

The 747 and 777 will be banded. The UAL MEC has basically come out and said that they were willing to concede that. The rumor of some sort of resolution that the UAL MEC said the 747 must be paid more is absolute BS.

But, what will NOT be conceded is the CAL MEC insistence that the 767-400 be in the same pay band as the 747/777. Trying to influence the SLI by saying that the 767-400 is paid the same, therefore somehow equal in seniority consideration as the 747/777. Inexcusable.

Talk about a "seniority grab".

 

[EWR_FO]

But, what will NOT be conceded is the CAL MEC insistence that the 767-400 be in the same pay band as the 747/777. Trying to influence the SLI by saying that the 767-400 is paid the same, therefore somehow equal in seniority consideration as the 747/777. Inexcusable.

Talk about a "seniority grab".

FG,

I have not heard that and, if that's the case, I agree with you. I don't see how this could get any legs under it because we don't break the 767 out as a separate base, so it is a very ambiguous statement for a guy to say "I hold the 767-400." Obviously, everyone has a pretty good idea of what seniority it takes to hold it but that will always vary by how good/bad the trips are.

 

[flyguppy]

Call your reps and ask them, flat out, if the pay band proposal included the 747, 777, 767-400 all in one band.

Now, before anyone gets all jumpy about how "The CAL JNC, UAL JNC, AND CAL MEC all said 'yes' and the UAL MEC said 'no' "........

That was because the UAL JNC was told to get the compromise done, assuming that the CAL MEC would not use any of the agreed upon bands for their SLI argument. Once Pierce said that he would not agree to that, the UAL MEC said no.

 

[ualdriver]

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

Flopgut-

I prefer not to debate or discuss anything with you. Your posts in the past are very emotional and cynical, and when you are corrected about factually incorrect statements that you make, you resort to name calling. An example (of many) are your recent (factually incorrect) statements about how 70 seat jets came on the UAL property. When I pointed out your errors, you said I had "Stockholm Syndrome." I think you used that particular syndrome in the wrong context anyway, but I'm just illustrating a point.

Seek you answers from someone else.

 

[ualdriver]

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'.

I assume you're a Continental guy?

First of all, with all due respect to my future co-worker, I could care less if you give us a "pass" concerning anything in bankruptcy. I followed our bankruptcy very closely, and in my opinion there is a mistaken assumption by most pilots on this forum that the center of the universe revolves around airline pilots.

I don't care if you believe me or not, but to think that any labor group has any sort of significant "leverage" in bankruptcy proceedings is folly at best. To imply that a labor group going through a 3 year bankruptcy process where a bankruptcy judge gives the reorganizing management team under the watchful eyes of creditors' committee practically carte blanche to do what it takes to reorganize the company and protect its creditors is beyond me. To think that we, as pilots, could make any significant demands or forgo compromise during this process just shows that you have little understanding of the inner workings of a bankruptcy.....and you're lucky that you didn't have to learn about it either.

So, I too, am "just sayin'"

As far as the 747 and the other banding issues go, I'll let the negotiators work that out. My opinion is that banding is concessionary, and we should be done conceding if we are truly pursuing an industry leading contract. If the 747's are "going away" as you state (you must have the executive offices bugged to arrive at such a conclusion with such certitude?) then I am sure wording can be drawn up that protects against such an eventuality. Otherwise, I think all aircraft should pay to productivity (speed, size, etc.) and that is the direction we have given our MEC since BEFORE any merger was announced. If our MEC decides to compromise on banding in the interest of keeping things moving with CAL, then I have to trust that such a compromise is in the interest of the greater good even though I don't agree with it.

 

[Flopgut]

Flopgut-

I prefer not to debate or discuss anything with you. Your posts in the past are very emotional and cynical, and when you are corrected about factually incorrect statements that you make, you resort to name calling. An example (of many) are your recent (factually incorrect) statements about how 70 seat jets came on the UAL property. When I pointed out your errors, you said I had "Stockholm Syndrome." I think you used that particular syndrome in the wrong context anyway, but I'm just illustrating a point.

Seek you answers from someone else.

I kind of already knew the answer, that's why I asked you. I think we all have this 744 issue mixed up. Don't we?

My take on the 764 is this: It's a widebody for pay in our [CAL's] prevailing agreement. The one we have right now. Why should we give that up? How is that a seniority grab when it's there, at this moment, while we speak. It's been there for a long time. It's not anything we are trying to merchandise for SLI purposes, we just don't want to forfeit it and we should not have to. That is the equal opposite of what the 744 pay issue is to UAL pilots.

 

[nimtz]

My take on the 764 is this: It's a widebody for pay in our [CAL's] prevailing agreement. The one we have right now. Why should we give that up? How is that a seniority grab when it's there, at this moment, while we speak. It's been there for a long time. It's not anything we are trying to merchandise for SLI purposes, we just don't want to forfeit it and we should not have to. That is the equal opposite of what the 744 pay issue is to UAL pilots.

Perfect compromise. We ditch the almighty 767-400 wide pay and in return UAL ditches whale overide argument. This would p!ss of lots of over 60 aholes, which is a great side benefit. Make a pay scale 753/763/764. Also would might take care of some dolts at both airlines that commute from one domicile to another in order to 'enjoy the prestige of the widebody!' Oh wait the 753 is just a pathetic narrow body! Darn that just won't work then...

 

[ualdriver]

Perfect compromise. We ditch the almighty 767-400 wide pay and in return UAL ditches whale overide argument. This would p!ss of lots of over 60 aholes, which is a great side benefit. Make a pay scale 753/763/764. Also would might take care of some dolts at both airlines that commute from one domicile to another in order to 'enjoy the prestige of the widebody!' Oh wait the 753 is just a pathetic narrow body! Darn that just won't work then...

Wow! What a deal for the UAL guys! We make 2 concessions: banding stays (a mistake in my opinion regardless), AND the 747 as the largest plane on the property doesn't get its own band. For those 2 quids, you give one concession by eliminating the 767/777 banding. With friends willing to cut deals like that, who needs enemies?

And for the frosting on the cake, let's piss of the senior guys, well, just because they have it coming to them. I mean, no one else flies those widebodies except senior Captains........right?

For the cherry on top, let's start a thread asking United guys loaded questions, the answers to which are already known to throw some fuel on the fire! All we need now is MCDU, Wayback, and JoeMerchant to come on here and throw some anti-ALPA propaganda on this thread and we'll have a real barn burner going!

 

[Flopgut]

Wow! What a deal for the UAL guys! We make 2 concessions: banding stays (a mistake in my opinion regardless), AND the 747 as the largest plane on the property doesn't get its own band. For those 2 quids, you give one concession by eliminating the 767/777 banding. With friends willing to cut deals like that, who needs enemies?

Man, you just don't get it. Explain how the 744 is a concession for you?! You DO NOT get paid more for it now. That makes it IMPOSSIBLE for it to be a concession on your part. Your chance to get tuff on the 744 was a lot of years ago and with your own mgt. You missed it. You gave it all up way too easily. We don't owe you anything here at CAL. You don't realize it, but we'll all make more money flying if you let us negotiate pay. All Jay asked was for you to pick the rate you want for the 744, and then attach the 777 and 764 to it. He didn't say that because he thought it was a stunt. He knows he can get that done. He knows we already have it. He's the one who has dealt with the guys/gals who are going to be running this place. You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to banding. And you need to realize, we all know your 744 position is an SLI stunt.

 

[Phrogs4ever]

So the facts of the matter today are: UAL 747 = 777 pay and CAL 767 = 777.

Now who's making the grab? Join the team and let the JNC try to float the entire widebody fleet higher and not just a small segment of it, unless that isn't your intention. This benefits the entire combined pilot group by keeping more pilots in the highest pay category...and preventing unnecessary infighting between pilot groups when there is more important business to tend to.