Weak L-UAL pilots

[AirMike]

If this TA passes you're as much to blame as the YES voters!

This is easily the most idiotic and irrational statement I have read in regards to the TA.

The "Yes" voters have gone from intelligent debate, skipped name calling, and gone straight bat******************** crazy.

 

[100/hour/5y]

Not all of the UAL pilots want his agreement to pass.

From: Jerry Leber
Subject: A path to a quick fix for some of the TA's worst flaws


Fellow pilots,


Our contracts’ amendable dates were 12/31/08 for LCAL pilots and 12/31/09 for LUAL pilots. By our account the company’s delay tactics were largely to blame, but by all accounts the combination of two extremely different contracts was both painstaking and time consuming.


It is clear that the call for release to the NMB created a sense of urgency for all the parties and helped bring this negotiation to an AIP, but what is also clear is that our negotiators were in no position to close the deal in the all-important end-game. We all remember the more than three months it took for the parties to actually agree on exactly what they agreed to in the form of a TA. Anyone who has negotiated to buy a house or even a car knows that this is no way to secure the best deal possible.


The bad news is that it took 3-4 years past our respective amendable dates to achieve what almost everyone agrees is a disappointing TA, but the good news is if we turn it down that time-consuming effort of meshing two disparate pilot contracts doesn’t need to be repeated. All that remains is to fix some glaring and important flaws in this TA and we have far more leverage with the company than we did just a few months ago.


The most unacceptable item from a unionist perspective in this TA is LOA 25 in which a relatively small group of our brothers and sisters who were furloughed would be treated as second class citizens even though the financial impact of making them whole is very small (est. $3M) on the company, but it is enormous upon these pilots' lives. These twice-furloughed LUAL pilots will have their longevity credit for the time they were furloughed limited unlike other pilots from LUAL, LCAL, DAL, NWA and other airlines because a very few want to preserve our furloughees' disadvantage for others imaginary SLI benefit and in doing so deny these furloughees and their families thousands of dollars of much needed and well-earned compensation that is meaningless to the company. There is an inspiring ground swell of support from the LCAL pilots to right this wrong because they recognize it as simply unjust. If there is one thing we should have learned over the years it is to never eat our young. Even if we discount the potential economic impact on such cannibalistic behavior to the Association, the cost in terms of fomenting never ending disunity alone should give us reason to pause. Have we not learned our lessons?


Another overarching problem with this TA was the failure to extract from the company their end of the grand bargain. Towards the end of the negotiation the MECs agreed to allow the JNC to submit a UAX 76 seat RJ proposal but only in return for Delta + compensation. The TA RJ proposal gives the company all the benefits of the DAL RJ proposal, but the shrinkage in Delta Connection block hours and mainline growth that DAL pilots are receiving as a result of 88 717s entering their mainline fleets is just a hope in our contract. Our TA allows UAX to add 67 76-seat RJs without parking one 70-seat UAX RJ. All they would have to do is park enough 50-seaters to keep the overall UAX block hours steady. There are 75 older and very high-maintenance CRJ-200s that are the obvious choice. The rest of the 50-seat UAX fleet are relatively new and more standardized EMB-145s largely flown by favored partner ExpressJet. Only if at some future date UAL decides to order mainline E190/5s or Bombardier CS100s will United pilots enjoy the mainline job growth and UAX block hour shrinkage that our DAL counterparts now experiencing.


Did we get DAL + compensation in return for our UAX 76-seat RJ scope proposal? NO!


• We got DAL - 8.5% in 2013, -3% in 2014 and -3% in 2015, the year in which the DAL contract becomes amendable.
• While our B/C plan will be 1-2% higher our new long-term disability (LTD) plan will cost us $150-$221 a month out of pocket while DAL’s LTD is better and paid by the company.
• Delta pilots got two on-time contracts which are the equivalent of 100% retro pay while we are getting about 50% and still don’t have the exact accounting that our union promised prior to voting to avoid another bond debacle of mis-preconceptions of what is actually due. Vague charts are inadequate.
• Delta pilots got 5% of the equity in DAL while we are getting zero. Today this is worth about $30,000/pilot.


The rationale the company used and that we bought to rationalize this year delay in the DAL pay rates was their inability to add 76-seat RJs to the UAX fleet within a year. It is safe to say that United pilots are sick and tired of paying for management incompetence.


The solutions to some of the biggest problems are pretty simple.


• Adjust the limit on UAX block hours to drop immediately and proportionally from the first UAX 76-seat RJ that is added, not starting with the 154th.
• DAL pay from day one.
• United pilots receive 10% of UAL stock that is immediately sellable. The extra 5% would be to compensate for the substandard retro.


Finally, work rules. We need to be assured that the adoption of the CAL PBS system and many of their work rules are not going to destroy pilots’ quality of life. The average 5 hours/day definitely helps, but we also need the 3.5 to 1 trip rig that Delta pilots have enjoyed for years much sooner than a year after our seniority lists are merged. Line-holders should not become reserves and the crew desk should not have near limitless access to reserves even into their days off. Also, if forced junior-manning is as rare and unlikely as the sales pitch would have us believe then it begs a simple question. Then why is the company so adamant about having it? Removing it from our agreement would be a sign of good faith on their part that they truly want to build a better culture with their pilots. It would show that they are willing to use incentives such as ADD pay instead of continuing to depend on sticks.


That’s all great, but what leverage to we have?


The biggest lever we have is the company finally needs this agreement. Wall Street and the institutional investors who control UAL stock are clearly growing frustrated with the poor return on their investment and the prospects going forward especially when the financial and service comparisons with DAL are so clearly deficient. UAL’s superior network is still compelling, but the analysts have seen the exodus of premium customers away from United. It is clear to them that this TA and the integration of the pilot groups are necessary for any UAL turnaround to begin. A strong NO vote would certainly shock airline analysts and could not be helpful to the UAL stock price.


At WHQ a myriad of IT projects including the migration from Unimatic to CAL’s Crew Management System (CMS) are on hold awaiting the pilot contract. The company needs to complete this migration by the end of 2013 ahead of the new FAR 117 Flight Time/Duty Time deadline. With the opening of new pilot bases and separate pilot groups the complexity and inefficiencies of the operation continue to grow and the company falls further behind in their pilot training backlog that can only be solved by getting pilots to fly more hours per month. The only plausible way to do that is for this manpower negative TA to pass.


The public call for release by the NMB got us this far, and that strike/release threat is far more credible now that the election is behind us. Labor was critical in the key state of Ohio and ALPA is a member of the AFL-CIO whose leader was in the Oval Office meeting with the President a week after his reelection. NMB Board member, Linda Puchala, personally told our MECs that she needs to know immediately if the TA fails what the pilots’ reasons for turning it down are. This clearly indicates that our contract is a high priority for the NMB and this Administration, but given both parties are motivated to reach an agreement NMB involvement is not required.


Finally, while the fears of UAL management wanting to shrink LUAL are warranted their ability to do so is limited by non-terminable protections in the TPA and the LUAL contract. The “replacement aircraft” provision in the TPA doesn’t expire like some provisions arguably may on March 31, 2013. This provision mandates that aircraft ordered after the legal merger, like UAL’s July 2012 737 order, will be flown by the pilots from the legacy airline whose planes are parked regardless of whether that plane is currently in that fleet. So if there is no TA by August 2013 when those 50 737-900ERs start arriving to replace the retiring LUAL 757-200s then LUAL pilots will fly those 737s and will be trained by LUAL instructors.


We are also protected by sections 1-F-1/2, the minimum block hour guarantee, of our contract and 1-C-1-d of our contract that limits UAX block hours to no more than UAL mainline block hours. We currently have grievances filed against the company for exceeding that contractual limit. If the company reduced LUAL mainline block hours they would have to reduce UAX block hours proportionally.


​

 

[100/hour/5y]

On September 11, 2001, the world changed for the airline industry and the pilots of United Airlines in particular. More than any other pilot group we sacrificed to save our company, we gave up over fourteen-billion dollars in concessions as well as the loss of our pensions for the promise of shared sacrifice, shared reward. We paid that price to retain some semblance of our work rules. Anyone who has seen the objective list of concessionary gives to the company in terms of both work rules and other areas realizes that life is going to be very different for the United pilots in the coming years if this TA is ratified. The reasons to vote yes are simply not compelling in terms of threat when one looks objectively at the very real and practical protections we have in place in our current CBA, T&PA, realities in the industry, and pressures on senior management. The reasons to vote yes are also often stated in a political context, i.e., “We need to move on.” Isn’t that exactly how the company and others have positioned us to get their way? The price of moving on at this moment will be staggering, the pain will be felt for the next six to eight years. The value received in the demonstration of a little more patience will be rewarded.


We have come a long way in this fight for what we are due. Our predecessors faced much more daunting prospects and far longer odds. We work for the world’s largest airline with the best network. UAL has $7B in the bank and is profitable despite gross mismanagement. If we fail to take the slightest risk even when the circumstances are so favorable then we should not expect management to deal fairly with us in the future. This is a critical and defining moment that will determine what type of airline for which we will work for the rest of our careers.


Jerry Leber

 

[eaglesview]

Sounds like fear to me. DAL+ IN 2016 is quite a rallying cry. :erm:

Not fear, risk management.

 

[Ex737Driver]

Your wasting your time debating flopgrunt. Let's assume that both pilot groups have in the past proceded in a manner to benifit themselves. He and most of the CAL pilots don't want to deal with the present. They turned there back on us and showed there true colors when in return for their PS we were asking for support to extend the TPA. (ironic isn't it) They don't want to acknowledge they have already reached the maximum of "other carriers lift" agreed to in the current TPA as evidenced by UAL furloughing f/a's and they are hiring f/a's. They just want us to sit back "trust them" as we retire our 757 and all of the replacement a/c for them (737's) are currently flown by them. Trust them my a$$. It's called risk management. CAL pilots and the UCH management which is mostly comprised of old CAL cannot be trusted. I will vote yes to remove all of the CAL pilot leverage.

You don't trust us but you trust mgmt? You have the bigger pilot group and you would think more of a say but where is that say? With Wendy? Nah, she's slinking back to the seat she got affirmatively. Hepner? Nah, if he had a pair maybe he might have stood up for the united group. Pure and simple you are pissed your union, for the THIRD damn time, sold you down the river/threw you under the bus and you can't stand it. So instead of stepping up to the plate and doing what's right, you do what you have done for the last decade. Blame someone else cause it could never be the united pilots fault and then step on your crank as you burn your own house to the ground to prove your point. Pathetic!

You guys don't even do anything to benefit yourselves. We are hiring your furloughed pilots that your pilots helped to furlough and you piss on us and tell us LOA 25 is our fault and we want to screw you for a better SLI. Dumba**es!

Should have done what the FA's did and negotiate separately and then work on a JCBA. Lot less whining involved.

As for FA's again, their pathetic union refused jobs at CAL when they were offered and instead furloughed their own people to prove a point. Idiots!

So go on, vote yes, and help both group to enjoy another 5-10 years of lowering the bar. Seems to be the only thing the UAL pilots are good for any more..........

 

[100/hour/5y]

LC 153 Update 5 Dec 12 - Two Votes in One



I. TWO VOTES IN ONE
As expected, many of our pilots have communicated to us that they are pleasantly surprised, impressed, and even overjoyed by what they have read in the TA.

No...actually that hasn't happened. Not even once. In fact, we have yet to hear from a single pilot who believes this TA meets their expectations or is sufficient based on the actual contents of the TA. Not a single person.

Unfortunately, many of those who do support this TA do so for many reasons- few of which are out of support for the merits of the TA alone. That is a problem. That indicates that even though this TA represents the contract we could potentially be working under every day for a minimum of four years, our pilot group doesn't seem to care. And even worse, our pilot group lacks the confidence to fight for what we intrinsically feel we are worth.

We would like to make sure you are aware that when you vote for or against ratifying this TA, there are actually TWO distinct decisions involved in your vote.

The first decision you need to make is based solely on the merits of the TA: “Does this TA sufficiently represent the compensation, the respect, and the treatment I deserve as a professional pilot of what is to become the world's largest airline?” That should be a simple, logical, black & white, yes or no answer.

The second decision you need to make is where emotion, skepticism, hope, and a crystal ball come into play. Now you have to ask yourself: “Can we do better?” Obviously this question is a whole lot more subjective with a lot more factors at play. And this is the question that many of the supposed “factual” communications you've received are targeting.

We'd like to address just a couple of the misconceptions that we've encountered by pilots when making this second decision.

1. “I just want to get this over with!” So do we. The sooner this is over, the sooner we can get on with our normal lives. But do we throw in the towel just because we are tired? As we've said before, we have unprecedented leverage that most of us will likely not see again in our careers. This merger is not complete until we agree to a JCBA and an ISL. Should we throw this opportunity away just because we have lost interest or are worn down?

2. "If we vote this down we may be put on 'ice'.” That is definitely one possibility. It is also equally possible (or even more likely if the vote is close) that the company will quickly reengage. They know that they low-balled us with pay rates that lag behind Delta. They know that they are paying us pennies on the dollar for what they owe us in retro. They also know that if this fails, those- along with a few work rule improvements- are quick fix items.

This is a test. Actually it is more of a game for our management. The objective of this game is to spend as little as possible on our contract. Management hopes that this offer passes by as close to 50% as possible; anymore and they will come to the conclusion that they put too much on the table.

If this TA passes by a slim margin, they have won- successfully minimizing our value and our self worth. On the other hand, if this fails by a slim margin, it will give them an indication of how close they are and how much more they need to add to get this TA to pass.

While voting “no” will not necessarily get us the contract of our dreams, it will at least ensure that we don't foolishly leave anything on the table. Voting “no” on this first offer will also inject a dose of confidence into our pilot group and demonstrate our resolve and unity to management.

Furthermore, while you have seen examples of how negotiations have been drawn out when the first offer was rejected, we would like to offer you an example right from our own “backyard” of when the parties reengaged in short order. In October 2007, the Continental Flight Attendants, represented by the IAM, rejected their first offer. Mr. Smisek even threatened them that he would walk away from the table. Just a few months later they ratified an agreement that included the pay raises of the initial offering as well as a signing bonus that wasn’t previously included. Apparently it can happen.

Also, keep in mind that none of the examples included in the MEC communications mentioned the unprecedented situation we are in today. As we said above, we are the last component of this merger. Until we have a JCBA, this merger is not complete. We are in the driver’s seat. Don’t forget that!

3. “I'm worried what will happen when the TPA expires.” For those of you who hadn't noticed, anytime after March 31, 2013, the company can unilaterally terminate five provisions or the TPA, four of which have to do with flying protections. Our brothers and sisters on the L-UAL side are worried about an impending whipsaw. The reality is that they will not spontaneous combust, as they have been lead to believe. There are still backstop protections in their 2003 CBA (namely, section 1-F and a Supplemental Agreement dated October 9, 2007) that dictate the minimum block hours L-UAL can operate. In addition, based on their scope protections, if they reduce mainline flying by much, the company will be forced to reduce their outsourced express flying as well, and they don't want to do that.

There is also another game in play here (in addition to management’s “50% plus one” game). This game is to see how effectively management can divide and conquer our two pilot groups. By pitting us against each other, they know they can destroy any unity we have and take advantage of us in the process. The fear of a whipsaw plays right into their hands.

4. “I just want to get this SLI process done!” You want to knowingly settle for an inadequate contract so that you can suffer through the SLI process that is guaranteed to be just as trying and perhaps even more stressful? Assuming you actually enjoy (or previously enjoyed) your profession of flying airplanes, don't you think it would be much more pleasant (read: less tortuous) if you at least had a decent contract going into the SLI process? We can assure you that having a contract that you don't despise would help reduce the sting that about 90% of us are going to feel when that ISL is published.

And remember- we are supposed to be industry leading pilots at an industry leading airline lead by the best paid management money can buy. You won't ever be a leader by settling for second best.

II. GOOD NEWS AND BETTER NEWS
In our last update, we mentioned the little “gem” that effectively reduced our lump sum payout by about 6.2% (or $24, 800,000 total). The relevant language is quoted below from LOA 24:

“The Company will pay $250,000,000 of the $400M Amount (the “$250M Amount”) to pilots in connection with the effective date of the Agreement and in accord with Paragraph 3.E. and 3.G of this Letter of Agreement. The $250,000,000 shall be the total payment amount, and any fringe benefits or other payments that are legally or contractually required to be made or increased in amount because of the payments to individual pilots herein (e.g., defined contribution retirement contributions, social security, payroll taxes) shall not increase the Company’s financial liability beyond the $250,000,000.” [emphasis ours]

(This restriction applies to the second “tranche” of $150 at ISL as well.)

As it turns out, yesterday we were officially informed that this has been "reinterpreted" (renegotiated) with the company, and they will now be paying their share- as the employer- of the FICA taxes. This is good news because it means an additional 6.2% into our pockets. This is even better news because it proves that the company is not only willing to renegotiate but also that they are willing to reach deeper into their pockets

IV. STILL MAKING THE ROUNDS
We still have one more Local Council special meeting on Friday, December 7, in Oceanside for our pilots who live down south. The last four meetings have been great opportunities to hear your perspectives about this TA and have your questions answered.

The MEC/JNC roadshow will also be coming to LAX on Wednesday, December 12 and SFO on Thursday, December 13. These are the best opportunities to hear from the JNC and subject matter experts, as well as have your questions answered by them.


Rob, Mike, and Josh

 

[SimHo]

Not fear, risk management.

Risk management = equals = FEAR

 

[Furloughed80]

Your statement is redundant.

 

[eaglesview]

Plus he aviates and flies
He flies jets and airplanes
Goes to work and to his job

 

[Phrogs4ever]

Risk management. Now there's a union battle cry for you.