UAL MEC message - 11/1/10
11-01-2010, 03:24 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B737 CAPT IAH
Posts: 1,130
I'm all for the 747's being paid the highest as long as there aren't any fences around them. 
What that letter doesn't address is that the UAL MEC passed a resolution mandating that it pay the highest, not the other way around. As far as I know the joint NC came up with an agreed upon section 3 and the UAL MEC shot it down, not CAL's.
Facts are a tricky thing as my buddy Coto likes to point out.
What that letter doesn't address is that the UAL MEC passed a resolution mandating that it pay the highest, not the other way around. As far as I know the joint NC came up with an agreed upon section 3 and the UAL MEC shot it down, not CAL's.
Facts are a tricky thing as my buddy Coto likes to point out.
Fences come about usually during arbitration (since that is where SLI's seem to always go...except AA/TWA) as a means to equalize an inequity that cannot be adequately addressed in a "fair/balanced" (as determined by the arbiter) seniority list integration. If you read a final decision, they state their rationale for fences based on x, y, and z, as they do with all their decisions regarding the final list.
I don't know what is going on regarding what exactly was passed. Nor, do I now what the UAL MEC's desire is other than I assume to go back to the prior size, weight, payload, speed equation for pay rates which of course requires un-banding.
Therefore, I don't see the CAL MEC's point of this stance. Don't see what they may think they are going to advantage themselves with. UA has more wide-body aircraft. Pay banding or un-banding will not change that or the approach taken by the inevitable arbitration process. That fact, and not pay, will be the driving issue in the "career expectations" evaluation.
My 2 cents.
Frats,
Lee
Last edited by LeeFXDWG; 11-02-2010 at 01:21 AM.
11-01-2010, 03:55 PM
#22
New Hire
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3
I'm all for the 747's being paid the highest as long as there aren't any fences around them.
What that letter doesn't address is that the UAL MEC passed a resolution mandating that it pay the highest, not the other way around. As far as I know the joint NC came up with an agreed upon section 3 and the UAL MEC shot it down, not CAL's.
Facts are a tricky thing as my buddy Coto likes to point out.
What that letter doesn't address is that the UAL MEC passed a resolution mandating that it pay the highest, not the other way around. As far as I know the joint NC came up with an agreed upon section 3 and the UAL MEC shot it down, not CAL's.
Facts are a tricky thing as my buddy Coto likes to point out.
What is wrong with fences? Seriously..why are you against them...We can fence our equipment and UAL can fence theirs. Its not like we were going to be flying 747s anytime soon at EWR. Besides I don't want all of UALs Miami crowd switching from IAD to EWR... Fences for all my friends!
11-01-2010, 04:06 PM
#23
work nights and weekends
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: United SFO B-737
Posts: 202
What that letter doesn't address is that the UAL MEC passed a resolution mandating that it pay the highest, not the other way around. As far as I know the joint NC came up with an agreed upon section 3 and the UAL MEC shot it down, not CAL's.
Facts are a tricky thing as my buddy Coto likes to point out.[/QUOTE]
FWIW I have not seen or read anything about what the JNC's recommendation was or which MEC did not accept it.
Facts are a tricky thing as my buddy Coto likes to point out.[/QUOTE]
FWIW I have not seen or read anything about what the JNC's recommendation was or which MEC did not accept it.
11-01-2010, 04:15 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Fero's
Posts: 472
During bankruptcy, one of the many concessions that was made to the ual contract, was banded pay rates. The 400 was banded with the 777 and the 320 was banded with the 737.
If we are truly after an industry leading contract, why would we want to keep concessions in it? Seems like we would want to get back as much of contract 2000 as we could.
If we are truly after an industry leading contract, why would we want to keep concessions in it? Seems like we would want to get back as much of contract 2000 as we could.
11-01-2010, 04:40 PM
#25
Need More Callouts
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Unbridled Enthusiasm
Posts: 2,143
Isn't ironic when our guy points out salient points having to do with CAL he's labeled an a-hole but when one of yours does she's instantly granted sainthood?
Quite frankly I don't care if the 747 pays the highest as long as it doesn't affect the SLI. The reason our MEC doesn't want it sitting on a lofty perch is it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for our Pilots.
We'll never fly the thing, (see fences), and it'll be gone by the time the fences come down. Like I said, draft a side letter that the arbitrator can't consider the 747's pay or status as factor and its all good.
Quite frankly I don't care if the 747 pays the highest as long as it doesn't affect the SLI. The reason our MEC doesn't want it sitting on a lofty perch is it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for our Pilots.
We'll never fly the thing, (see fences), and it'll be gone by the time the fences come down. Like I said, draft a side letter that the arbitrator can't consider the 747's pay or status as factor and its all good.
11-01-2010, 05:26 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 110
The Delta and Northwest pilots avoided polluting their JCBA negotiations with SLI issues during their merger by reaching an agreement, approved by ALPA, that they would not rely on their JCBA wage rates as a basis for arguing that one aircraft type should or should not be grouped with other aircraft types when constructing an integrated seniority list. The CAL-MEC has refused our repeated requests for a similar agreement.
Isn't it then quite misleading and disingenuous, when looking at this issue, to hold them out as a example of compromise on the JCBA/SLI?
I don't believe for a second that CAL's MEC rejected an agreement that truly protected the SLI from being influenced by unbanding the pay for the 747. They may have rejected a loosely worded, unreliable agreement.
Whatever form the agreement took for the NWA/DAL merger, the ALPA merger policy wording has changed since then.
If CAL's merger committee chairman is saying it won't work then I'd be inclined to believe him since he was on the committee that re-wrote the merger policy.
If the UAL MEC were willing to agree to an iron-clad document that prohibited unbanded pay from influencing the SLI arbitration AND allowed the CAL pilots unfettered access to the highest paying aircraft AND that highest pay for the 747 does not come at the expense of the pay for the rest of the fleet (ya know the other 99% of the pilots), then I have no doubt that the CAL MEC would sign off on it.
11-01-2010, 06:57 PM
#30
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: B737 FO
Posts: 10
XI. Joint Exhibits and Stipulations.
The following documents shall be considered Joint Exhibits and shall be submitted to the Board prior to the commencement of the arbitration:
C. 1., 2., 3 and 4. Northwest and Delta Pre-Merger and Combined Collective Bargaining and Retirement Agreements, and Delta LOA 19.
The following documents shall be considered Joint Exhibits and shall be submitted to the Board prior to the commencement of the arbitration:
C. 1., 2., 3 and 4. Northwest and Delta Pre-Merger and Combined Collective Bargaining and Retirement Agreements, and Delta LOA 19.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
