MAY System Bid
05-13-2011, 07:02 AM
#61
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
I wouldn't buy that line about the 4-5 month delay on the banding issue. I'm totally convinced that even if the MEC's hadn't had this roadblock, we'd be right where we are now, with the company offering nothing but concessions. The day the DOJ approved the merger, our leverage disappeared, and negotiations pretty much ground to a halt. Just my thoughts.
Regardless of the 'minor rift' mentioned & ANY type of lost time line, I 100% believe our JNC vs MGT would still be where they (we) presently stand......No closer to a tentative JCBA w/ several sections w/o the coveted "AIP" label.
05-13-2011, 10:34 AM
#62
On Reserve
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 10
[QUOTE=jsled;993156]Until a JCBA is ratified, our contract is still intact, according to my rep! That is the major leverage we have. He states that even with SOC, we cannot fly planes on the UAL side until a JCBA and SLI are complete. But, the company can grow the UAL side, but they cannot lower the block hours on the CAL side.
05-13-2011, 10:40 AM
#63
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
[QUOTE=dogger;993221]
Until a JCBA is ratified, our contract is still intact, according to my rep! That is the major leverage we have. He states that even with SOC, we cannot fly planes on the UAL side until a JCBA and SLI are complete. But, the company can grow the UAL side, but they cannot lower the block hours on the CAL side.
a'la USAirways.....With their SOC & two seperate pilot CBA's. No mixed crews/equipment
Until a JCBA is ratified, our contract is still intact, according to my rep! That is the major leverage we have. He states that even with SOC, we cannot fly planes on the UAL side until a JCBA and SLI are complete. But, the company can grow the UAL side, but they cannot lower the block hours on the CAL side.
05-15-2011, 12:52 PM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
[QUOTE=dogger;993221]
Until a JCBA is ratified, our contract is still intact, according to my rep! That is the major leverage we have. He states that even with SOC, we cannot fly planes on the UAL side until a JCBA and SLI are complete. But, the company can grow the UAL side, but they cannot lower the block hours on the CAL side.
So a UAL 777 or 767 base in IAH or EWR will be ok? I mean as long as your block hours don't decrease. Obviously, I am being sarcastic. It is a bad sitution. There is really nothing to be done now, as we are locked into the "JCAB first" agreement. I just think it was a mistake not to do the list ASAP. And worst of all, a repeated mistake. ALPA should have known better based on the history of this industry. We are making it too easy on UCH to screw us. JMHO
Until a JCBA is ratified, our contract is still intact, according to my rep! That is the major leverage we have. He states that even with SOC, we cannot fly planes on the UAL side until a JCBA and SLI are complete. But, the company can grow the UAL side, but they cannot lower the block hours on the CAL side.
05-16-2011, 01:02 PM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: 737 CAPT
Posts: 1,905
[QUOTE=jsled;993962]
So a UAL 777 or 767 base in IAH or EWR will be ok? I mean as long as your block hours don't decrease. Obviously, I am being sarcastic. It is a bad sitution. There is really nothing to be done now, as we are locked into the "JCAB first" agreement. I just think it was a mistake not to do the list ASAP. And worst of all, a repeated mistake. ALPA should have known better based on the history of this industry. We are making it too easy on UCH to screw us. JMHO
And MHO is that I'm glad we are doing it this way first so as not to become the next US/AW pilot group. It's supposed to give incentive for both sides to get this done ASAP (mainly management), but that is proving to be like trying to get a cat to use a toilet at this point.
So a UAL 777 or 767 base in IAH or EWR will be ok? I mean as long as your block hours don't decrease. Obviously, I am being sarcastic. It is a bad sitution. There is really nothing to be done now, as we are locked into the "JCAB first" agreement. I just think it was a mistake not to do the list ASAP. And worst of all, a repeated mistake. ALPA should have known better based on the history of this industry. We are making it too easy on UCH to screw us. JMHO
05-16-2011, 02:04 PM
#66
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
[QUOTE=EWRflyr;994456]
And MHO is that I'm glad we are doing it this way first so as not to become the next US/AW pilot group. It's supposed to give incentive for both sides to get this done ASAP (mainly management), but that is proving to be like trying to get a cat to use a toilet at this point.
I see your point, but in reality, our merger "end game" could very well mirror that of USAirways in the "long term interim". How long is that you may ask?? Who know's.....it could be weeks, months, years till a JCBA is produced to procure 'one group' under the new UAL. I realize that much of USAirway's problems stem from the SLI (thus our new policy), but years have gone by and they are essentially running two 'separate' pilot groups with no end in sight.
Your are correct, the 'new' method of JCBA--->SLI is est. to alleviate discourse between the two merging pilot groups, but USAirway's current state could very well be our future state on the surface if our mgt chooses to stay the course in our current negotiations. Just compare some similarities below.
USAirways:
** SOC granted almost 4 yrs ago (Sep'07)
** 2 separate Pilot CBA's
** No 'merged pilot group', mixed equipment
** ....And the clock ticks on.
"United" (via UCH's):
** "Hopes" of a SOC granted w/in 6-12 months from present
** 2 separate Pilot CBA's
** No 'merged pilot group', mixed equipment (as JCBA drags---->out)
** "Clock" started May 3, 2010 MAD w/ Oct 1, 2010 marking 'handsome' executive raises in tow on financial closing.....Oh yeah, the clock ticks on.
Not trying to be 'doom-n-gloom', just being real in what we are presently facing with our current mgt. I'm ALL for getting this done right the first time. If "time" is what it takes for our JNC to do 'battle' with Mgt, I'm willing to wage the 'effort' and patience needed to get what we deserve by way of a 'handsome' JCBA....not to produce some POS (J)CBA to just move on to the 'next step'. Been there, done that, don't like it one bit. We deserve much better.
And MHO is that I'm glad we are doing it this way first so as not to become the next US/AW pilot group. It's supposed to give incentive for both sides to get this done ASAP (mainly management), but that is proving to be like trying to get a cat to use a toilet at this point.
Your are correct, the 'new' method of JCBA--->SLI is est. to alleviate discourse between the two merging pilot groups, but USAirway's current state could very well be our future state on the surface if our mgt chooses to stay the course in our current negotiations. Just compare some similarities below.
USAirways:
** SOC granted almost 4 yrs ago (Sep'07)
** 2 separate Pilot CBA's
** No 'merged pilot group', mixed equipment
** ....And the clock ticks on.
"United" (via UCH's):
** "Hopes" of a SOC granted w/in 6-12 months from present
** 2 separate Pilot CBA's
** No 'merged pilot group', mixed equipment (as JCBA drags---->out)
** "Clock" started May 3, 2010 MAD w/ Oct 1, 2010 marking 'handsome' executive raises in tow on financial closing.....Oh yeah, the clock ticks on.
Not trying to be 'doom-n-gloom', just being real in what we are presently facing with our current mgt. I'm ALL for getting this done right the first time. If "time" is what it takes for our JNC to do 'battle' with Mgt, I'm willing to wage the 'effort' and patience needed to get what we deserve by way of a 'handsome' JCBA....not to produce some POS (J)CBA to just move on to the 'next step'. Been there, done that, don't like it one bit. We deserve much better.
Last edited by SoCalGuy; 05-16-2011 at 04:08 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
