SK wants Concessions
05-30-2020, 02:10 AM
#101
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2020
Posts: 215
I think the consistent concern by those who are willing to entertain a temporary lowering of MPG, is that the common refrain:
”I don’t know how they’ll screw us, but they will.”
is clearly not well thought out. In it,
fear and skepticism are dress up as wisdom. Categorical and Unexamined thought is never wise.
we’ve all been burned by the corruption of crony capitalism and unbelievable bias of courts against labor, but the thing at stake herE is your fellow united pilots’ jobs. The argument isn’t for payroll savings, it for concrete block hours.
if our union crafted an LOA for temporary MPG change, then its part of the UPA. If we are in a position where are UPA is being abrogated, there are MUCH worse things to worry about than MPG.
retirement contributions, pay rates, furloughs out of seniority, reneged moving expenses, do I need to go on? If the whole contract is up for grabs, I’m not super worried about only flying 60 hours in October and January, I’m TERRIFIED that my job as I know it is over. So this slippery slope argument is not based in reason, it’s based in fear. Perhaps Fear that management is once again playing chess while we play checkers, or that the same people who become federal judges probably belong to the same country clubs as our executive leadership.
Whatever the fear, it’s obvious that the reasons against a temporary LOA are based on what-ifs and worst case scenarios. The reasons for it are here now and there will be a fixed amount of block hours to be divided up among X amount of pilots.
when the union leadership comes down with their decision, after hopefully examining the options thoroughly, i won’t Monday-morning-QB it. But while the decision is still out there to be made, anyone who advocates that we don’t discuss this and formulate our OWN opinions is not anyone I can respect. I support our union’s decisions, but I would never encourage anyone to allow another to think for them.
”I don’t know how they’ll screw us, but they will.”
is clearly not well thought out. In it,
fear and skepticism are dress up as wisdom. Categorical and Unexamined thought is never wise.
we’ve all been burned by the corruption of crony capitalism and unbelievable bias of courts against labor, but the thing at stake herE is your fellow united pilots’ jobs. The argument isn’t for payroll savings, it for concrete block hours.
if our union crafted an LOA for temporary MPG change, then its part of the UPA. If we are in a position where are UPA is being abrogated, there are MUCH worse things to worry about than MPG.
retirement contributions, pay rates, furloughs out of seniority, reneged moving expenses, do I need to go on? If the whole contract is up for grabs, I’m not super worried about only flying 60 hours in October and January, I’m TERRIFIED that my job as I know it is over. So this slippery slope argument is not based in reason, it’s based in fear. Perhaps Fear that management is once again playing chess while we play checkers, or that the same people who become federal judges probably belong to the same country clubs as our executive leadership.
Whatever the fear, it’s obvious that the reasons against a temporary LOA are based on what-ifs and worst case scenarios. The reasons for it are here now and there will be a fixed amount of block hours to be divided up among X amount of pilots.
when the union leadership comes down with their decision, after hopefully examining the options thoroughly, i won’t Monday-morning-QB it. But while the decision is still out there to be made, anyone who advocates that we don’t discuss this and formulate our OWN opinions is not anyone I can respect. I support our union’s decisions, but I would never encourage anyone to allow another to think for them.
Management is salivating over the statement above like Pavlov's dog.
You really need to call your union reps to find out what is actually going on. You'll be wiser and calmer for it. Trust me when I say I've experienced what you're feeling now. While natural, it was a total and complete waste of my energy. Your career as you know it is NOT over.
05-30-2020, 02:59 AM
#102
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 1,865
I’m TERRIFIED that my job as I know it is over.
Management is salivating over the statement above like Pavlov's dog.
You really need to call your union reps to find out what is actually going on. You'll be wiser and calmer for it. Trust me when I say I've experienced what you're feeling now. While natural, it was a total and complete waste of my energy. Your career as you know it is NOT over.
Management is salivating over the statement above like Pavlov's dog.
You really need to call your union reps to find out what is actually going on. You'll be wiser and calmer for it. Trust me when I say I've experienced what you're feeling now. While natural, it was a total and complete waste of my energy. Your career as you know it is NOT over.
Last edited by JoePatroni; 05-30-2020 at 03:16 AM.
05-30-2020, 04:11 AM
#103
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
I think the consistent concern by those who are willing to entertain a temporary lowering of MPG, is that the common refrain:
”I don’t know how they’ll screw us, but they will.”
is clearly not well thought out. In it,
fear and skepticism are dress up as wisdom. Categorical and Unexamined thought is never wise.
we’ve all been burned by the corruption of crony capitalism and unbelievable bias of courts against labor, but the thing at stake herE is your fellow united pilots’ jobs. The argument isn’t for payroll savings, it for concrete block hours.
if our union crafted an LOA for temporary MPG change, then its part of the UPA. If we are in a position where are UPA is being abrogated, there are MUCH worse things to worry about than MPG.
retirement contributions, pay rates, furloughs out of seniority, reneged moving expenses, do I need to go on? If the whole contract is up for grabs, I’m not super worried about only flying 60 hours in October and January, I’m TERRIFIED that my job as I know it is over. So this slippery slope argument is not based in reason, it’s based in fear. Perhaps Fear that management is once again playing chess while we play checkers, or that the same people who become federal judges probably belong to the same country clubs as our executive leadership.
Whatever the fear, it’s obvious that the reasons against a temporary LOA are based on what-ifs and worst case scenarios. The reasons for it are here now and there will be a fixed amount of block hours to be divided up among X amount of pilots.
when the union leadership comes down with their decision, after hopefully examining the options thoroughly, i won’t Monday-morning-QB it. But while the decision is still out there to be made, anyone who advocates that we don’t discuss this and formulate our OWN opinions is not anyone I can respect. I support our union’s decisions, but I would never encourage anyone to allow another to think for them.
”I don’t know how they’ll screw us, but they will.”
is clearly not well thought out. In it,
fear and skepticism are dress up as wisdom. Categorical and Unexamined thought is never wise.
we’ve all been burned by the corruption of crony capitalism and unbelievable bias of courts against labor, but the thing at stake herE is your fellow united pilots’ jobs. The argument isn’t for payroll savings, it for concrete block hours.
if our union crafted an LOA for temporary MPG change, then its part of the UPA. If we are in a position where are UPA is being abrogated, there are MUCH worse things to worry about than MPG.
retirement contributions, pay rates, furloughs out of seniority, reneged moving expenses, do I need to go on? If the whole contract is up for grabs, I’m not super worried about only flying 60 hours in October and January, I’m TERRIFIED that my job as I know it is over. So this slippery slope argument is not based in reason, it’s based in fear. Perhaps Fear that management is once again playing chess while we play checkers, or that the same people who become federal judges probably belong to the same country clubs as our executive leadership.
Whatever the fear, it’s obvious that the reasons against a temporary LOA are based on what-ifs and worst case scenarios. The reasons for it are here now and there will be a fixed amount of block hours to be divided up among X amount of pilots.
when the union leadership comes down with their decision, after hopefully examining the options thoroughly, i won’t Monday-morning-QB it. But while the decision is still out there to be made, anyone who advocates that we don’t discuss this and formulate our OWN opinions is not anyone I can respect. I support our union’s decisions, but I would never encourage anyone to allow another to think for them.
How would the pilot group view such a proposal if the company negotiators put this idea on the table during section 6 negotiations as a way to introduce flexibility into our contract (normal days...pre-COVID)? Would our negotiators conclude this as a 'no cost' win-win item? What would we expect in return?
There's a lot of talk that our contract was not meant for a COVID type scenario. Our contract is mature and the pilots who wrote it and voted for it over the decades have witnessed many varied downturns. Suddenly we're supposed to believe that none of our predecessors thought of including a reduced line value in the contract? The contract ALREADY has language that dictates what happens to the line values in the event of a furlough.
5-B-1-a The Line Production Average (“LPA”) for a Category shall be no less than seventy-two (72) Line Credit hours and no greater than eighty-four (84) Line Credit hours, set to the nearest minute.
5-B-1-a-(1) When any Pilot is on Involuntary Furlough, the LPA for a Category shall be no less than seventy-four (74) Line Credit hours and no greater than eighty-two (82) Line Credit hours, set to the nearest minute.
As you can see LPA is directly addressed in our contract -- in the event of a furlough our LPA gets tightened from a range of 72-84 to a range of 74-82. We're not being asked to consider an oversight, we're being asked to completely change the current language. Convincing me that it's a good idea (and non concessionary) is a very high hurdle.
There's a lot of talk that our contract was not meant for a COVID type scenario. Our contract is mature and the pilots who wrote it and voted for it over the decades have witnessed many varied downturns. Suddenly we're supposed to believe that none of our predecessors thought of including a reduced line value in the contract? The contract ALREADY has language that dictates what happens to the line values in the event of a furlough.
5-B-1-a The Line Production Average (“LPA”) for a Category shall be no less than seventy-two (72) Line Credit hours and no greater than eighty-four (84) Line Credit hours, set to the nearest minute.
5-B-1-a-(1) When any Pilot is on Involuntary Furlough, the LPA for a Category shall be no less than seventy-four (74) Line Credit hours and no greater than eighty-two (82) Line Credit hours, set to the nearest minute.
As you can see LPA is directly addressed in our contract -- in the event of a furlough our LPA gets tightened from a range of 72-84 to a range of 74-82. We're not being asked to consider an oversight, we're being asked to completely change the current language. Convincing me that it's a good idea (and non concessionary) is a very high hurdle.
05-30-2020, 04:59 AM
#104
Banned
Joined APC: May 2014
Position: Tom’s Whipping boy.
Posts: 1,182
I think the consistent concern by those who are willing to entertain a temporary lowering of MPG, is that the common refrain:
”I don’t know how they’ll screw us, but they will.”
I’m TERRIFIED that my job as I know it is over. So this slippery slope argument is not based in reason, it’s based in fear. Perhaps Fear that management is once again playing chess while we play checkers, or that the same people who become federal judges probably belong to the same country clubs as our executive leadership.
Whatever the fear, it’s obvious that the reasons against a temporary LOA are based on what-ifs and worst case scenarios. The reasons for it are here now and there will be a fixed amount of block hours to be divided up among X amount of pilots.
.
”I don’t know how they’ll screw us, but they will.”
I’m TERRIFIED that my job as I know it is over. So this slippery slope argument is not based in reason, it’s based in fear. Perhaps Fear that management is once again playing chess while we play checkers, or that the same people who become federal judges probably belong to the same country clubs as our executive leadership.
Whatever the fear, it’s obvious that the reasons against a temporary LOA are based on what-ifs and worst case scenarios. The reasons for it are here now and there will be a fixed amount of block hours to be divided up among X amount of pilots.
.
05-30-2020, 05:33 AM
#106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: WB Bunkie
Posts: 1,246
BMEP and JoeP, I challenge you to simply read (and quote) the first half of the sentence in which the TERRIFIED statement exists. quoting somebody out of context works for cable news junkies, but I think most people wouldn't find it very good-spirited to intentionally misrepresent someone else's views so you can express an opinion already agreed upon by the group.
FYI, the previous sentence is a conditional statement saying that IF the company has the ability to disregard any (and many) black-and-white contract provisions, we should all be TERRIFIED. I don't think it is strange to feel an extreme emotional aversion to losing all of the QOL provisions in our contract. I'm not terrified of a furlough. Thats like an airline pilot being afraid of an overnight... kind of a part of this industry eh?
DeathRay, If I get furloughed, I won't be getting pay at my new FO rate, it'll be at CA rates... see what I'm saying? There are already provisions in there that take previous pay (and easily could stipulate 70 as the magic number for furlough pay). The UPA is jammed with codicils and statements to clarify/modify provisions in the event of X. Like I'm saying, if the company has the ability to simply disregard certain parts of the contract, we are in a much uglier situations than simply a reductions in MPG.
Axl16, I can't argue with your statement. I agree that the UPA was written with provisions surrounding a furlough. Two points,
A. The UPA isn't perfect and we craft LOAs all the time, so just because it has been addressed, doesn't mean its addressed perfectly. My personal opinion is that the provisions you quoted make sense during an economic downturn, a period which I don't support decreased MPG. I don't think it makes sense to ask people to operate on reduced MPG for an indefinite period of time. I think this situation is different because there has never been a situation that saw demand drop so quickly and rebound so quickly. I would advocate that if an LOA was crafted, it would be temporary, require re-authorization and/or sunset altogether in 9 months. By next spring, we'll know if this thing is going to be a long term economic issue, or if the limited memory of the American' public has been wiped IE travel trends back towards a 90% level (I think 100% is not going to happen for quite a while).
B. For your definition of concession IE strictly reduction in pay, then this is a concession and I commend anybody for standing against concessions. I personally don't view it as a concession, but I understand why you do.
FYI, the previous sentence is a conditional statement saying that IF the company has the ability to disregard any (and many) black-and-white contract provisions, we should all be TERRIFIED. I don't think it is strange to feel an extreme emotional aversion to losing all of the QOL provisions in our contract. I'm not terrified of a furlough. Thats like an airline pilot being afraid of an overnight... kind of a part of this industry eh?
DeathRay, If I get furloughed, I won't be getting pay at my new FO rate, it'll be at CA rates... see what I'm saying? There are already provisions in there that take previous pay (and easily could stipulate 70 as the magic number for furlough pay). The UPA is jammed with codicils and statements to clarify/modify provisions in the event of X. Like I'm saying, if the company has the ability to simply disregard certain parts of the contract, we are in a much uglier situations than simply a reductions in MPG.
Axl16, I can't argue with your statement. I agree that the UPA was written with provisions surrounding a furlough. Two points,
A. The UPA isn't perfect and we craft LOAs all the time, so just because it has been addressed, doesn't mean its addressed perfectly. My personal opinion is that the provisions you quoted make sense during an economic downturn, a period which I don't support decreased MPG. I don't think it makes sense to ask people to operate on reduced MPG for an indefinite period of time. I think this situation is different because there has never been a situation that saw demand drop so quickly and rebound so quickly. I would advocate that if an LOA was crafted, it would be temporary, require re-authorization and/or sunset altogether in 9 months. By next spring, we'll know if this thing is going to be a long term economic issue, or if the limited memory of the American' public has been wiped IE travel trends back towards a 90% level (I think 100% is not going to happen for quite a while).
B. For your definition of concession IE strictly reduction in pay, then this is a concession and I commend anybody for standing against concessions. I personally don't view it as a concession, but I understand why you do.
05-30-2020, 05:59 AM
#107
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 64
In theory it sounds like a good idea but the reality is never in history of the airline industry has a concession in a upa prevented a furlough. In the history of the airlines only COMANY offered VOLUNTARY leaves and reduced lines has reduced or mitigated furloughs. Your a naive dense dam fool. Keep dreaming of rainbows and unicorns. They will still furlough if we give them your concessions.
05-30-2020, 06:04 AM
#108
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 1,865
BMEP and JoeP, I challenge you to simply read (and quote) the first half of the sentence in which the TERRIFIED statement exists. quoting somebody out of context works for cable news junkies, but I think most people wouldn't find it very good-spirited to intentionally misrepresent someone else's views so you can express an opinion already agreed upon by the group.
05-30-2020, 06:19 AM
#109
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,358
BMEP and JoeP, I challenge you to simply read (and quote) the first half of the sentence in which the TERRIFIED statement exists. quoting somebody out of context works for cable news junkies, but I think most people wouldn't find it very good-spirited to intentionally misrepresent someone else's views so you can express an opinion already agreed upon by the group.
FYI, the previous sentence is a conditional statement saying that IF the company has the ability to disregard any (and many) black-and-white contract provisions, we should all be TERRIFIED. I don't think it is strange to feel an extreme emotional aversion to losing all of the QOL provisions in our contract. I'm not terrified of a furlough. Thats like an airline pilot being afraid of an overnight... kind of a part of this industry eh?
DeathRay, If I get furloughed, I won't be getting pay at my new FO rate, it'll be at CA rates... see what I'm saying? There are already provisions in there that take previous pay (and easily could stipulate 70 as the magic number for furlough pay). The UPA is jammed with codicils and statements to clarify/modify provisions in the event of X. Like I'm saying, if the company has the ability to simply disregard certain parts of the contract, we are in a much uglier situations than simply a reductions in MPG.
Axl16, I can't argue with your statement. I agree that the UPA was written with provisions surrounding a furlough. Two points,
A. The UPA isn't perfect and we craft LOAs all the time, so just because it has been addressed, doesn't mean its addressed perfectly. My personal opinion is that the provisions you quoted make sense during an economic downturn, a period which I don't support decreased MPG. I don't think it makes sense to ask people to operate on reduced MPG for an indefinite period of time. I think this situation is different because there has never been a situation that saw demand drop so quickly and rebound so quickly. I would advocate that if an LOA was crafted, it would be temporary, require re-authorization and/or sunset altogether in 9 months. By next spring, we'll know if this thing is going to be a long term economic issue, or if the limited memory of the American' public has been wiped IE travel trends back towards a 90% level (I think 100% is not going to happen for quite a while).
B. For your definition of concession IE strictly reduction in pay, then this is a concession and I commend anybody for standing against concessions. I personally don't view it as a concession, but I understand why you do.
FYI, the previous sentence is a conditional statement saying that IF the company has the ability to disregard any (and many) black-and-white contract provisions, we should all be TERRIFIED. I don't think it is strange to feel an extreme emotional aversion to losing all of the QOL provisions in our contract. I'm not terrified of a furlough. Thats like an airline pilot being afraid of an overnight... kind of a part of this industry eh?
DeathRay, If I get furloughed, I won't be getting pay at my new FO rate, it'll be at CA rates... see what I'm saying? There are already provisions in there that take previous pay (and easily could stipulate 70 as the magic number for furlough pay). The UPA is jammed with codicils and statements to clarify/modify provisions in the event of X. Like I'm saying, if the company has the ability to simply disregard certain parts of the contract, we are in a much uglier situations than simply a reductions in MPG.
Axl16, I can't argue with your statement. I agree that the UPA was written with provisions surrounding a furlough. Two points,
A. The UPA isn't perfect and we craft LOAs all the time, so just because it has been addressed, doesn't mean its addressed perfectly. My personal opinion is that the provisions you quoted make sense during an economic downturn, a period which I don't support decreased MPG. I don't think it makes sense to ask people to operate on reduced MPG for an indefinite period of time. I think this situation is different because there has never been a situation that saw demand drop so quickly and rebound so quickly. I would advocate that if an LOA was crafted, it would be temporary, require re-authorization and/or sunset altogether in 9 months. By next spring, we'll know if this thing is going to be a long term economic issue, or if the limited memory of the American' public has been wiped IE travel trends back towards a 90% level (I think 100% is not going to happen for quite a while).
B. For your definition of concession IE strictly reduction in pay, then this is a concession and I commend anybody for standing against concessions. I personally don't view it as a concession, but I understand why you do.
05-30-2020, 06:35 AM
#110
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 1,865
We are going to vote to pay for the insurance premiums of those who get furloughed. Perhaps you could decide to leave the UPA alone and start a GoFundMe page where people can donate 25-30% of their pay, after being displaced to a lower paying category, to pay furloughed pilots 55 hrs a month. Let me know how that works out. I don’t mean to sound heartless, but we should not open the contract, even in an attempt to save pilots from furlough. You would get about as many voting for what you propose as you would people actually contributing to a GoFundMe page.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
BZNpilot248
Regional
29
07-14-2008 06:49 PM
