gettinbumped

That is the plan

gettinbumped

Unbelievable, isn't it? I'm not sure what his thought process was, but he sealed his reputation forever with that one slip of the pen

REAL Pilot

Answer= $500,000,000

That is what the UAL MEC negotiated not to protest the pension termination. So I guess those RJ's are worth some cash. Guess who devised the convertible note distribution- UAL MEC. Guess who got left out- the furloughed guys.

Its the pain of it all really...........

kc135driver

Ah common, as Prater use to be quoted saying, we "young" guys have the time to make up the loss of our pensions!

Personally still waiting for that time to begin, next on the list after age 65 sunsetting would be overcoming ill affects of a bad SLI.....

KC

strfyr51

************************************************** *****
the Thought process was to AVIOD more losses for the membership
wasn't 30+% enough? Pretty easy after the fact to make all kinds of judgements after all of these years, But Tell you what? The Guy who engineered all of that? is STILL the Chairman of the Board. And his "Able" Lieutenant is STILL the COO, and Jeff is in the Middle. SO WHO are you going to talk to, to change their mind? Tilton and Jeff have already PUT the 70 seaters in CAL Hubs under the "UAL" banner. Is this NOT UAL??
Is it NOT Legal?? If it were you'd have already taken UAL to Court.
so OBVIOUSLY they have some traction here. Might be you need to show more of a United Front and JCBA/SLI Progress on your OWN before they take YOU (ALPA) seriously. Y'Think?? told you before Tilton Nor Smisek are in Awe Nor are they afraid of ALPA, AT ALL!

JetDaily

Not even close, but nice try. If you only knew.

JD

gettinbumped

Well, we got absolutely NOTHING for the Special LOA that Whiteford signed regarding the E170. The company came to Whiteford and said "we made a mistake by not having the language include airplanes that weigh as much as the E170. Not allowing the E170 into the mix will severely hamper Skywest, Republic, etc's ability to negotiate the best rate for the 70 seaters because they can't pit one manufacturer against another."

So Whiteford said "Here ya go" and signed off on the E170 while getting NOTHING in return. Criminal.

As far as going forward. You are preaching to the choir. I am very relieved that we are apparently over the bickering regarding the JCBA and back to a more United front. As far as THEM taking US seriously, I'm pretty confident that they will be taking us seriously when we hold up the Single Operating Certificate by not accepting a crappy contract.

However, there are legal channels that need to be followed. We tried to put the screws to the company, got sued, and lost. THIS time, however, time is on our side, as the COMPANY announced that they want a S.O.C by the end of next year. If they want that, they need a single list. If they want THAT, they need a contract in place in time to finish the several month inevitable arbitration of the list. The fact that neither side has filed for mediation tells me that so far the company realizes they need to (finally) play ball.

2wright

Can you please point me to the contractual provision that allows us to hold up the Single Operating Certificate? That was a rhetorical question because there isn't one. The Single Operating Certificate is a matter between the FAA and management (when was the last time you heard the US Air call sign?). Moreover, has anyone else noticed that the optimization of aircraft and route structure is also not in our control? UA is about to start flying IAH-LIM with a 767-300, CO is about to start a bunch of 737 routes out of ORD and of course the well publicized regional flying out of IAH is about to become reality.

What we control is very limited: the ability for UA and CO pilots to fly together and for pilots to fly aircraft from the other pre-merger company --that's it. It's worth something, but only a fraction of the value that most pilots think we control. Meanwhile, years will go by as we wonder why management isn't capitulating to our demands while they already have 97% of the merger synergies in hand.

I know this post will be met with jeers from some, but it is a foolish endeavor to negotiate without a true assessment and understanding of your actual leverage. I'm all for maximizing the leverage we do have, but first we need to understand that we haven't hit the leverage lottery jackpot as some would like to believe.

I think ALPA is partially responsible for this mindset, because they think it's good politics to talk tough and cater to pilot's dream scenarios like controlling a billion + in merger synergies. Unfortunately, they seem to think it's bad politics to admit that most of it is just for show.

We are going to get the contract we're going to get and I'd prefer to have the time value of money working for me rather than against me. For those who think that retro-pay takes care of that concern, trust me, retro money just comes from some other area of the contract (for example, you could forgo the retro-pay and get higher pay rates or something else -- it's just money at that point). Furthermore there's no such thing as retro work rules -- you can't get back a day off from last year.

Yak02

Bingo! You've got it 2wright. ALPA has already blew their chance.

boxer6

WOW! Its sounds that a blatant exchange of value was taken from one group and given to the other.

Honest representation would require that the MEC chairmen divulge to the whole pilot group that the company wanted the E170 weight allowance and in exchange for that was the possibility (not a guarantee..which the company most certainly would not concede given the circumstances) that the pensions would be safe. And, the price for that bet would be the possibility "X" number of jobs off the bottom of the list. It stands to reason that this was done unilaterally by the MEC chairman because he very well knew what the response from the pilot group would be?

It seems that would be reasonable grounds for a DFR conflict and subsequent lawsuit, especially in light of the fact that Whiteford's signature on that letter was done without a vote from the MEC much less the pilot group on the whole. I always thought major economic implications were required to be voted on by the membership?

Has there been any background noise about a lawsuit from the furloughees? From what I've read here it sound like one feces sandwich after another for those at the end of the UAL list. Gettingbumped mentioned the word criminal. Sounds accurate.