Nope.
US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
Nope.
sumadarson
Veteran
- Nov 17, 2010
- 851
- 905
Zone5
Veteran
- Dec 17, 2010
- 773
- 696
OK Jim, I'm not as smart as you are. Although you state that the East pilots are not "the root of the problem". It is somehow the East's fault that "Dougie' decided that it would be a good idea that the company should stop doing what was working on the West". Lots of new hires and airplanes on order for them to fly. And, "infect" them with the East's "high costs"?
Why would "Team Tempe" do less of what was "working" and do more of what was not? To this day, "Dougie" has the same cost structure to combat WM that he had prior to the merger. Somehow the "East's high cost structure" (last time I checked my pay stub, I am the second lowest paid 75/76 pilot in the business, ahead of AWA) ) is to blame. The West pilots claim that if it had not for bin for mean old USAirways, that they would be doing great! What's stopping him, go ahead, kick WN's butts!
I just don't get it, why would you do more of what's not working and less of what is?
I remember when a prior a USAir management team was selling B737-300's to raise the money to put hush kits on B737-200"s. We all know how that worked or at BWI. It's not us, flying the jets, it's them calling the shots that is the problem. Always has been, always will be.
seajay
Zone5
Veteran
- Dec 17, 2010
- 773
- 696
If the West would come back to the table, perhaps the "Conditions/Restrictions" could be re-written to be equitable to the West. Walking away, solves nothing and will not look good in a DFR-II proceeding.
seajay
sumadarson
Veteran
- Nov 17, 2010
- 851
- 905
United pilots demands after Usairways, awa merger. They provided a "neutral" pilot, gillen, doh april 1992, for the Usairways, america west merger.
April 6, 2009
Mr. Glenn Tilton
President and Chief Operating Officer
United Airlines, Inc.
77 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Dear Mr. Tilton:
In accordance with the provisions of Section 6, Title I of the Railway Labor Act as amended, and
Section 23 of the rewrite of the United Airlines, Inc. Pilots’ Agreement dated May 1, 2003, the
pilots of United Airlines, Inc. as represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, hereby serve
notice of their intention to amend their Collective Bargaining Agreement. Any new agreement
that is reached will be subject to ratification and shall not become effective, binding or operative
until signed by the President of the Air Line Pilots Association.
The Association desires to serve notice of intended change and open all Letters of Agreement,
Letters of Understanding, supplemental Agreements and all sections of the Basic Agreement,
dated May 1, 2003. The items listed within each section for discussion and improvements are
neither all inclusive nor completely definitive and specific language proposals will be provided
during actual negotiations.
Please have your representatives contact Mr. John G. Schleder to discuss any preliminary matters
and to schedule initial conferences in accordance with the mutually agreed to Negotiating
Protocol.
Sincerely,
For the Pilots in the Service of
UNITED AIRLINES, INC.
Captain John Prater, President
Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l
JP:ech
cc: S.A. Wallach, MEC Chairman
D. McKeen,
Section 6 - Seniority:
Seniority is of paramount importance to a pilot’s career. It has a profound effect on a
pilot’s earning potential and quality of life.
Therefore, ALPA proposes the following modifications to Section 6 of the Agreement:
1. Discuss recognition of an ALPA National Seniority List
2. Discuss using longevity date for all contractual benefits
11. Incorporate new language to require the Company to recognize an ALPA
National Seniority list, if established
prater letter
April 6, 2009
Mr. Glenn Tilton
President and Chief Operating Officer
United Airlines, Inc.
77 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Dear Mr. Tilton:
In accordance with the provisions of Section 6, Title I of the Railway Labor Act as amended, and
Section 23 of the rewrite of the United Airlines, Inc. Pilots’ Agreement dated May 1, 2003, the
pilots of United Airlines, Inc. as represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, hereby serve
notice of their intention to amend their Collective Bargaining Agreement. Any new agreement
that is reached will be subject to ratification and shall not become effective, binding or operative
until signed by the President of the Air Line Pilots Association.
The Association desires to serve notice of intended change and open all Letters of Agreement,
Letters of Understanding, supplemental Agreements and all sections of the Basic Agreement,
dated May 1, 2003. The items listed within each section for discussion and improvements are
neither all inclusive nor completely definitive and specific language proposals will be provided
during actual negotiations.
Please have your representatives contact Mr. John G. Schleder to discuss any preliminary matters
and to schedule initial conferences in accordance with the mutually agreed to Negotiating
Protocol.
Sincerely,
For the Pilots in the Service of
UNITED AIRLINES, INC.
Captain John Prater, President
Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l
JP:ech
cc: S.A. Wallach, MEC Chairman
D. McKeen,
Section 6 - Seniority:
Seniority is of paramount importance to a pilot’s career. It has a profound effect on a
pilot’s earning potential and quality of life.
Therefore, ALPA proposes the following modifications to Section 6 of the Agreement:
1. Discuss recognition of an ALPA National Seniority List
2. Discuss using longevity date for all contractual benefits
11. Incorporate new language to require the Company to recognize an ALPA
National Seniority list, if established
prater letter
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Aug 24, 2002
- 3,358
- 2,319
No kidding. Your screen name says it all. Nic or nothing. Same as USAPA...DOH or nothing. No difference between the two in my eyes.
Driver <_<
NO DIFFERENCE? Really.......let's see, how'd we get the NIC? Why was USaPa created? hmm...... now you c?
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #7,899
Maybe you should just stick to flying the airplanes then. I certainly can't read Parker's mind - either now or in 2005 - but have wondered if he was looking at East on paper instead of reality. But if you doubt what I said about the cost structures dig up the quarterly reports for HP, US, and WN back in 2004/2005 and see for yourself what the CASM was for each (and don't forget to include USX since US only reported CASM for mainline). I don't remember the exact numbers but HP's CASM was about half a cent higher than WN's while US was more than double WN.
What your paycheck said was only one factor of another factor and that was only that every working pilot at US was making top of scale while WN and HP were hiring and had a significant number of pilots not yet at top of scale. The truth was that US ran an inefficient airline and in both bankruptcies sought to compensate mainly with employee concessions. But Siegel and Lakefield both made a critical mistake - shrinking mainline and adding RJ's. The less than top of scale employees were mostly furloughed in 2002 and replaced with high CASM RJ's. And employee pay was only 1 factor in US' higher CASM which is why I said that the pilots weren't the root of the problem.
Jim
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Aug 24, 2002
- 3,358
- 2,319
How did we get the Nic?
The cowards at ALPA National didn't know the first thing about leadership.
Why was USAPA created?
An over-reaction to a lousy situation.
c?
No, I don't SEE.
Driver <_<
Oops.....correction, that should read...."I sometimes say things that I don't mean."
Sorry
Metroyet
Veteran
- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,571
- 5,664
You guys are obsessed with ALPA. You're like stalkers. If your crappy job still exists in 2 years, my belief is you'll be wearing an ALPA pin while the carcass of USAPA rots on the trash heap. I'll also guess you're going to have a BELOW industry average contract inclusive of the Nic. Compliments of your fellow EAST pilots.
exB717Flyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,106
- 599
It's been stated many times before but perhaps you didn't read it here: no C&R or fences provide protection from being furlough-fodder. The only thing that protects one from furlough is his/her seniority. The USAPA-desired seniority list makes furlough-fodder and that's just one of the reasons the C&Rs are irrelevant to the West.
Plus, you say "come back to the table". Who exactly would come to the table representing the West? As you well know USAPA is our legal bargaining representative now. There's no "walking away" when there's no table to begin with. A solution might have been possible if we still were ALPA with separate MECs but USAPA removed the West as a separate entity.
So you'll have to revise your lamentation to match the reality of the situation. The only way to appease the West, such as it is, is to present a contract for vote that the West can accept. Will that ever happen? Not from USAPA it won't.
CallawayGolf
Veteran
- Nov 13, 2009
- 1,920
- 1,961
That’s because you are looking through the lens of moral relativism and situational ethics. There is a vast difference between one person or group seeking to attain that which was a contractually guaranteed and awarded through binding arbitration (NIC) and another group that seeks to attain something (DOH) that was expressly rejected at each step of a legally-sanctioned dispute resolution process (negotiation, mediation, arbitration). And yet you see no difference between the two?
Further, one group desires implementation of a system which protects the pre-merger status seat/equipment of all pilots with a minimum of detrimental impact to all pilots while the other group seeks to impose massive displacements to one group for the express gain of their own group. And you still see no difference between the two? This is a clear example of why this dispute is not just a difference of opinion; it’s a difference of personal integrity and honor (or the lack thereof for the majority on the east). Rational and lucid thinking seems to have left the east long ago.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
