US Pilots Labor Discussion

[No Land Green]

First off, it nice to see you've adopted (stolen?) my recent "rule of law" mantra. It's a healthy thing. Although your idea and mine of the rule of law are probably polar opposites. Either way we'll both be right if we stick to that statement.

The last part cracks me up, as if the PBGC guarantee is something to chirp about. It's an embarrassment. I don't even look at my PBGC payout when I think of retirement. Compared to what it should have been, it's pitiful. Personally I plan on more than making up for it with future contracts in my remaining career. But anyway, if LOA93+PBGC+Military Retirement = $$$$$$$$$, then wouldn't an "industry average contract and retirement plan"+PBGC+Military Retirement = EVEN MORE $$$$$$$$$$$$$ ? I guess you're OK with settling for substandard pay + substandard pension, which btw would = a substandard quality of life in retirement.

Keep laughing Jetz, cause I am. I'm going to live an above standard life in retirement, that's already been taken care of.

Rule of law, yeah whatever the courts decide, we will live with, that will be the rule of law. It will prevail. If Nic is a slam dunk, the rule of law will prevail. If it is not, the rule of law will prevail. Maybe you should have "rule of law" copyrighted, LMAO

 

[mrbreeze]

oh yah.. you UAL guys are so freakin superior...
you might tone down your grandor...

it's not nice too brag, did your parents not teach you anything....

Craz,
I have commuted on UAL fairly often for the last 11 yrs...he can't help his snooty attitude. About 2/3 of them are infected with it and have been since long before any of this happened. B)

 

[No Land Green]

Why do I think you are on the wrong side of the law? Where do I start? You support USAPA and its attempts to circumnavigate Binding Arbirtation to promote the majority at the expense of the minority (DFR). You are so desperate, that you want to believe anything Cleary and Seham will tell you. You lack integrity. Your cause is unjust. You are going to lose.

USAPA = When should we cut our losses? Recapture some pay and move on?

More comedy. Yeah and I paid my ALPA dues and assessments too. No desperation here. All of it seems to come from your side. I'm not going to lose anything, unless the company goes out of business........

 

[No Land Green]

Craz,
I have commuted on UAL fairly often for the last 11 yrs...he can't help his snooty attitude. About 2/3 of them are infected with it and have been since long before any of this happened. B)

Yeah he's pretty confident isn't he? Hate 2 Fly has a college roommate over at UAL. He gets the "unbiased facts" from him in regards to UAL.....

 

[Barrister]

First off, it nice to see you've adopted (stolen?) my recent "rule of law" mantra. It's a healthy thing. Although your idea and mine of the rule of law are probably polar opposites. Either way we'll both be right if we stick to that statement.

The last part cracks me up, as if the PBGC guarantee is something to chirp about. It's an embarrassment. I don't even look at my PBGC payout when I think of retirement. Compared to what it should have been, it's pitiful. Personally I plan on more than making up for it with future contracts in my remaining career. But anyway, if LOA93+PBGC+Military Retirement = $$$$$$$$$, then wouldn't an "industry average contract and retirement plan"+PBGC+Military Retirement = EVEN MORE $$$$$$$$$$$$$ ? I guess you're OK with settling for substandard pay + substandard pension, which btw would = a substandard quality of life in retirement.

You are right....but personally......I don't want to retire with over 100 K per year
which will be the case with PBGC, plus an annunity paying me 75 K per, plus military
plus Social security and get on a plane to spend some sun time somewhere in the Carib and see
the guy who helped me get there still in the right seat THE POINT YOU JUST AIN'T GETTING
YOU SELFISH ....well you know the rest .......by the way .....why do you care what
our retirement is. And real glad you don't even count the PBGC. You idiot...it's your money!!

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[Freebird]

See, this shows your true integrity. I've done none of that. I tried to get both sides to find other solutions, starting at the first updates from our merger committee and kept up until the election of USAPA, when it became clear that only a court would settle this. If your idea of integrity means making assumptions and claims that you have no idea about.....well that says it all.

You can claim that you are a righteous union pilot. Your messages waver from "johnny come lately" to staunch USAPA-drone. We dont have to 'go to court' it was settled with George Nicolau. Where were you? What part do you not understand? Binding Arbitration is straight forward. I'd be willing to bet that your "possible solutions" are just West compromises. You'd have had a better chance if your side (maybe not you, johnny) would have not demanded DOH. But your group chose to start its own union in hopes of avoiding the NIC. Poor choice. DOH or C&Rs created by the East is not an option.


USAPA = "I fought the law, and the Law won...I fought the law, and the LAW won."

 

[Freebird]

More comedy. Yeah and I paid my ALPA dues and assessments too. No desperation here. All of it seems to come from your side. I'm not going to lose anything, unless the company goes out of business........

Is that because you have NOTHING left to lose?


Option 2; Create own union and avoid spend years attempting to avoid the arbitration award.


USAPA - Our track record is poor and lacking. Poor character and Lacking Integrity.

 

[767jetz]

by the way .....why do you care what
our retirement is.

I don't care. Your sister, No Land Green brought it up.

.............LOA93+PBGC+Military Retirement=$$$$$$$$$

I just think you should set your sights higher.

 

[mikey60]

Unlike you, I dont have 'size' issues. Paycheck, Airplane, etc. What I do have is Integrity. And that troubles you.

I don't have to lie and cheat my way through life. I'm not downtrodden and depressed like your East contemporaries. I don't live on my fathers coattails either. The truth is my guiding principle. Not my ego. I understand that your career didn't work out as your planned. Mine hasn't either. I however didn't cause your stagnation. You are doing your best to transfer your losses and stagnate mine. Fortunately, you have been and will continue to be unsuccessful.

USAPA = What HAVE we done for you?

OH GOD!!.....do you wear a cape and have a big "S" on you chest? and " the truth is my guiding principle" is that from a John Wayne movie. Of all the jerks in the west corral you deserve the "AWA" award of the month.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I've read both the 9th Opinion and the DJ Transcripts. "Ripe" is definitely valid if the Nic HAS to be incorporated and it is NOT into section 22.

Yes it is ripe upon ratification if the Nic isn't in it, unless a miracle happens and USAPA comes up with a non-Nic that gives the West the same protections as the Nic. Just for example, though, suppose there is a ratified contract with the Nic but had payscales that paid West $20K less than the East. A DFR would still be ripe, it just wouldn't be over the Nic.

Now the big question is what defines "harm the West fears"?

Well, the East or USAPA won't get to define it. The West and a judge will. Isn't it pretty clear what the West fears - a contract without the protections the Nic offers.

Jim

 

[sumadarson]

I don't care. Your sister, No Land Green brought it up.



I just think you should set your sights higher.

ual pilot update, Latest Update: February 17, 2011

Question: What incentive does the company have to close a successful jcba? Is it just the "retro pay" clause, which most of us think will be negotiated away anyway? American has been in mediation for what, 4-5 years? Is there any way to expedite this process so that we can strike sooner? Should we assume that once we are officially in mediation we should start the clock ticking and HOPE we'll get something in 5 years?

Answer: The power rests with the NMB at this point. If one party or the other is not negotiating in good faith, then the NMB has a great deal of power to punish that party. For example, at American, APA refused to budge off their "all or nothing" position, so the NMB punished them by putting their negotiations in recess. On the other hand, when Spirit's management refused to budge off THEIR "all or nothing" position, the NMB allowed Spirit to go on strike, and the Spirit pilots got a greatly-improved contract. So, the task of our ALPA negotiators is to make as reasoned and balanced a case as possible, as expeditiously as possible. That's how both Hawaiian and Alaska were recently able to achieve excellent contracts. And Fed Ex just signed as well, after only a few months in negotiations.


Question: One of the web sites I use to access Skynet is running a story quoting Jeff [Smisek] as saying he will wait a year to get the contract he wants. Any truth to this?


Answer: Smisek didn’t say that “… he will wait a year to get the contract he wants. …” According to the Dow Jones story published on October 1, 2010, “… Jeff Smisek, chief executive of United Continental Holdings Inc. (UAL), said it would take at least a year to secure new joint collective bargaining agreements with staff at the legacy Continental and United airlines, which merged Friday.” Bear in mind that there are many unions representing the workers of UAL and CAL: ALPA, AFA, CWA, IAM, IBT, etc. The company’s negotiators are stretched thin, to say the least, so a year is not an unreasonable expectation to secure new JCBAs with all CAL and UAL employees.



Question: I believe [Smisek] needs a loan to make the merger work. With the funds in the coffers does he have enough money to pay cash and not reduce the cash remaining to bankruptcy levels for a company as large as United-Continental holdings?

Answer: Currently UAL has $4.94 billion in cash, more than enough to pay the merger-related expenses.



Question: What are the dates of hire of the members of the UAL-MEC Merger Committee?

Answer:

F/O Jeffrey Ruark

Chairman

3/23/92

Captain Bill Bales

Member

1/24/85


Captain Stephen Gillen """PILOT NEUTRAL""" In Usairways, awa seniority dispute.

Member

2/17/92


F/O Dan Madruga

Member

11/2/98

 

[Crzipilot]

Well, the East or USAPA won't get to define it. The West and a judge will. Isn't it pretty clear what the West fears - a contract without the protections the Nic offers.

Jim

I can understand the judge defining it, with the backing of previous case law and the barrier to reach a dfr as defined by scotus, Not so sure the "west" gets to define it to the judge.

The west may feel they have been subjected to a DFR, and get to explain that to a judge, but doesn't necessarily mean they get to define it. In fact I think the 9th even alluded some to the fact that the NIC is essentially a stalemate, that even ALPA recognized. Hence some of their wording in their decision. Could be wrong, but too late to go back and read it again...

Let me add. JUST because the west fears it, does not in itself make a it a breach of DFR.....

 

[sumadarson]

You can learn from the ual, cal merger, thanks to jetz and his ual pilots. I hope the following questions will be helpful from the ual merger committee, for Usairways pilots.

The following are from the ""ual merger committee q and a's, 2011""

My F/O keeps telling me the junior Captains at CAL were hired in 2005 and since he was hired in 1996 he views that as a disaster for him.

I talked to friends at CAL and they seem to think that their junior Captains in the domestic system are 1998 hires. Apparently Guam has a couple of Captains that are way out of seniority due to the nature/demands of Guam.

Is the 1998 junior Captain information correct in the domestic CAL system?

Answer from the UAL-MEC Merger Committee: CAL pilot data shows that as of May 3, 2010, all but one of the CAL captains have dates of hire in 1998 or earlier. There is a chance that the data has changed based on the most recent CAL equipment bids.

Putting this information to one side, we must address the premise of the original question. The problem with the premise, i.e. that it would be a “disaster” if a pilot hired by one carrier in 2005 was integrated ahead of a pilot hired in 1998 by the other, is that it has been many years since ALPA Merger Policy specifically incorporated “date of hire” as a determining factor to be considered by arbitration boards. Instead, current policy identifies “longevity” as a relevant factor to be considered. Thus, for either the CAL or the UAL pilot group to focus so intently on date of hire sends the wrong message about what pilots’ expectations should be.

Can the Company (the new United Airlines) get a Single Operating Certificate without a JCBA and/or an ISL?

Answer: Yes, the company can get a single operating certificate without a JCBA or ISL. US Airways does have an SOC. The benefits to the company of complete operational integration are the motivation for achieving a JCBA (followed by an ISL), and are not dependent on an SOC. Both the SOC and ISL are separate, independent processes.



Those who were wrongfully terminated have been reinstated, so why is there still an injunction?



Answer: The Federal judge's decision was that the injunction remains in place till we have signed a new contract or till we have reached the end of a 30-day cooling-off period and are free to engage in self help. The reinstatement of Captain Tamkin was as a result of the System Board decision and is independent of and a separate and distinct process from the court injunction decision.



We are one year out of a contract and the current CEO appears to be no different than Glenn Tilton, so why is there no discernible action?



Answer: Although it may appear that there is no discernible action, actually a lot is taking place. Both ALPA and UAL have passed complete contract proposals across the table, we have settled some sections of the contract (of course, not the main ones), a Federal mediator has been appointed, and the company has agreed to continue negotiations prior to the Federal mediator's first meeting with us. Members of the JNC have been meeting with the company this week.



Why is there an easing into this merger when we, as the stronger carrier, seem to be getting the short end of things already? As an example, flying shifting to Houston, although flown by us for now.



Answer: Under the terms of the merger agreed to by the boards of directors of United and Continental, Continental CEO Jeffrey Smisek was appointed CEO of the new United Airlines. In the United States (in contrast to Germany, for example) management has free rein to make all decisions except those that are explicitly defined in labor agreements.



We want details! Exactly what offer is on management’s desk. I've been an ALPA member for 20 years, 3 airlines, 13 years at United. We never know what is going on until the contract gets signed! Or so it seems ...



Answer: We get asked this question all the time, and our answer is always the same: It is MEC policy not to negotiate in public, because this MEC (and all preceding MECs) have made the decision that broadcasting our negotiating positions is counterproductive towards our goal of getting an industry-leading contract.



Imagine you are on a layover someplace in Asia, Beijing for example. It's right before Christmas and you've been given a long list of things to buy for family and friends. Along with some other pilots and flight attendants, you go into one of the endless warren-like bazaars full of stalls selling the usual knock-off crap. At a stall recommended by everybody else you see something that's on your list, something you're prepared to pay $5 for. You ask the merchant how much, and the merchant responds: "Ah! You are United pilot! For you, best price! $40!" Do you then run back to your crew and say "That nasty man wants to charge me $40 for something that's only worth $5!"? No, you merely laugh and say, "You must be joking! I was thinking more like 50 cents!" Eventually you settle on a price, or not, but the key to success is that you MUST be prepared to walk away. The more the merchant senses that you want something, the higher the price will be.



Of course, our negotiations are much more complicated than that, but the process is essentially the same. At the moment we have made our initial offers to each other ("50 cents!" "40 dollars!"). But how close will the result of the negotiations be to our initial "ask" or the company's initial "ask" is impossible to say.



However, unlike in the Asian bazaar example, exactly HOW our ALPA-UAL negotiations take place is strictly governed by the RLA, and it's the NMB who will say when we can walk away. So it's a very delicate process with many nuances that cannot be shared without damaging the process.



People always get mad at us when we say that we all must understand the RLA in order to gain insight into the process. And here's why: The RLA was enacted by the Congress in 1926 in an effort to end the constant labor strife in the railway industry, and the RLA's primary purpose is to minimize disruptions to the nation's commerce by making it very difficult for transportation unions to go on strike. But, recognizing that some method of dispute resolution is necessary, the RLA set up a framework for negotiating disputes (e.g. contract negotiations). That is the framework that we must follow, but it is the reason that, so often, contract negotiations drag on for years. In contrast, countries that are more labor-union-friendly than the United States do permit legal strikes to occur much more easily, and, in my opinion, union members in those countries generally have relatively better contracts as a result.



In our specific case, however, it doesn't necessarily mean that our negotiations will drag out for years. There is a lot of incentive to expeditiously negotiate a new contract, and management has acknowledged this. Management has the positive example of the success of Delta Airlines and the negative example of the mess at US Airways as signposts. We will continue to negotiate per the RLA procedures, but we don't know how long the process will take, and we have to let it unfold.



It's the three people that make up the NMB (two from the party in the White House, one not) who have the legal authority to release the parties into a 30-day cooling off period. Their decision must be done in accordance with the RLA, of which its primary purpose is to minimize disruptions to commerce. At the moment the two Democratic members of the NMB are former TWA-ALPA MEC Chairman Harry Hoglander and former AFA President Linda Puchala. We couldn't ask for a more sympathetic NMB, but regardless of how sympathetic they may be, they are bound by the rules of the RLA. It's the job of our ALPA negotiators to make the best, most reasoned, most disciplined case possible to the NMB mediator, because he reports to the NMB. Since Obama took office Alaska and Hawaiian have both negotiated good contracts, and Spirit was permitted to go on strike, also achieving a good contract. So there are a lot of positive signs for us to get an excellent contract sooner rather than later.

 

[Pi brat]

You can claim that you are a righteous union pilot. Your messages waver from "johnny come lately" to staunch USAPA-drone. We dont have to 'go to court' it was settled with George Nicolau. Where were you? What part do you not understand? Binding Arbitration is straight forward. I'd be willing to bet that your "possible solutions" are just West compromises. You'd have had a better chance if your side (maybe not you, johnny) would have not demanded DOH. But your group chose to start its own union in hopes of avoiding the NIC. Poor choice. DOH or C&Rs created by the East is not an option.


USAPA = "I fought the law, and the Law won...I fought the law, and the LAW won."

Keep pulling it out of your ass. Let me quote the messiah again, "prove it". I am a migs in USAPA in order to have a say and a vote. I've disagreed with quite a bit of USAPA'S actions and said so. The C18 being the biggest. You have no integrity.

 

[Pi brat]

[quote name='Freebird' timestamp='1298081.
We dont have to 'go to court' it was settled with George Nicolau. Where were you? What part do you not understand? Binding Arbitration is straight forward.
[/quote]

Really! So you guys paid 2 mill out of your pockets for fun? Call them and tell them "they don't have to go to court". We didn't have to, but the majority of pilots decided to appeal the unappealable. I understand fine and have thought you guys had the best shot at this, but I've been around long enough to never say never. You also forget that staying with ALPA or going to USAPA, there was always the last veto of membership ratification(unless Prater took it away). In the end we will live with what the courts say and what the majority of members decide is an acceptable contract.