CAL Replacing UAL flying, not new flying
10-11-2011, 08:56 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
The same TPA that would allow a shift of flying from UAL to CAL also has a poison pill that remains intact. The filling of CAL vacancies with UAL pilots, who do not relinquish recall rights at UAL going forward.
If this trend continues in the wrong direction, a large group of these pilots could reach the breaking point, and all depart at once while keeping seniority and recall rights at UAL intact. In addition other UAL pilots who bypassed the offer may feel compelled at this point to accept first rights at any training openings and also resign when finished. With the current CAL staffing model, this could make for one very interesting summer in the near future.
SP
If this trend continues in the wrong direction, a large group of these pilots could reach the breaking point, and all depart at once while keeping seniority and recall rights at UAL intact. In addition other UAL pilots who bypassed the offer may feel compelled at this point to accept first rights at any training openings and also resign when finished. With the current CAL staffing model, this could make for one very interesting summer in the near future.
SP
Increased flying caps in C2003 by 10-15%, allowing UAL to furlough additional pilots.
Agreed to PBS in C2003, resulting in a 5-10% reduction in pilot staffing needs.
Traded away furloughee longevity, offered by the company in TA1, for something for the senior pilots.
Denied bond money to furloughees and retirees.
Agreed to unlimited 70 seat RJs.
And I'm sure that the list would be significantly longer if I put some effort into it. On the bright side, UALALPA did vote for the now industry standard furloughee medical/dental fund - just don't check the final voting results; it doesn't speak well for our UAL brothers. It passed by a razor, razor thin margin.
UALALPA has dumped a lot of poison in the well for UAL furloughees; I suspect that at least a few of us will find ourselves more loyal to our CAL brothers than our UAL brothers.
You beat me too it. Furloughing from UAL is going to create the mother of all disasters for management. It will more than double training costs, as furloughed pilots would need to go to CAL indoc and then new airplane training. Then when UAL starts to recall, they go back and have to redo it all over again at UAL, thus decimating the CAL staffing. I hope even our management can see how disruptive and expensive that would be to their own airline
I just read on the United forum that the first class at Continental has a number of Captains including a couple 747 ones that took voluntary furloughs. They are going back to be 737 FO's at $190/hour. If United decides to fulough again, a pilot can take a voluntary furlough, get paid I think it was 4 months severance, and start in a class at Continental the next day making the pay he was at United. So how how are they going to save money?
A more logical and likely step for UCH is to shrink UAL roughly equal to age 65 retirements. UCH management can retire UAL 757s in a measured manner to match those pilot retirements. Plus, UCH has a pretty decent cushion in the number of flight hours that they can fly each UAL pilot - anywhere from minimum guarantee (65 line/70 reserve) to monthly maximum (89 widebody, 95 narrowbody). So there's no need to furlough from the UAL side of the house. If the average pilot at UAL is close to monthly maximums, UCH can retire a few UAL aircraft. If the average UAL pilot is close to minimum guarantee, there's no need to retire aircraft; simply allow age 65 to eliminate the surplus.
Now, step back for a moment. Now that CAL is hiring UAL furloughees, what is the incentive for UCH to grow the UAL side?
Keep this in mind - the CASM on the CAL side is less than on the UAL side of the house. Let me break it down to your daily life. Let's assume that your Porsche's (this is for the UAL pilots I flew with prior to being furloughed the second time - showing me pictures of Porsches, third wives, and boats, yet needed age 65 because their pension was wiped out) gas tank is empty. You can pay $3.69 for premium at the Chevron or $3.74 for premium at the Exxon across the street. Which gas are you going to use? The bottom line is that air travel, much like gasoline, is a commodity where very few people are loyal one brand. And since UCH can get their flying done for less on the CAL side of the house, that's where the flying will go.
My point here is that the UAL side will not grow until after JCBA. All growth will occur on the CAL side. At the same time, there will not be any further UAL furloughs unless CAL has furloughed all of their newly hired UAL refugees.
Now, let's step back another ten paces. UAL furloughees hired at CAL will not be on probation - including those who were on probation when furloughed from UAL. That means that they can vote in ALPA from day one. I propose that we make it very clear to ALPA that unless there is full restoration of furloughee longevity for pay AND benefits (benefits are more important to me than pay, as I'm on year 4), your vote will be NO.
With that in mind, I would encourage any UAL furloughee on the fence to accept a job a CAL.
SP and all UAL furloughees, we UAL furloughees can have some control over getting credit for furlough time. I think that we have a golden opportunity here to get furlough credit.
I don't know where CALALPA sits on furloughee longevity but from what I've read, they're a he11uva lot more loyal to their junior pilots. And since there are more than a few CAL ex-furloughees, I'm sure that we could reach critical mass very quickly.
Last edited by Andy; 10-11-2011 at 09:22 AM.
10-11-2011, 10:02 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
Cripes! I just looked up the difference between year 4 and year 11 pay. That's a pretty decent difference. We need to insist on furlough credit.
I'll also add that we should push for longevity credit from Date of Hire, not from date of IOE completion.
I'll also add that we should push for longevity credit from Date of Hire, not from date of IOE completion.
10-11-2011, 10:50 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Left - Dodge Caravan
Posts: 357
SP, why would UAL furloughees up and quit CAL? What exactly has UALALPA done for us?
Increased flying caps in C2003 by 10-15%, allowing UAL to furlough additional pilots.
Agreed to PBS in C2003, resulting in a 5-10% reduction in pilot staffing needs.
Traded away furloughee longevity, offered by the company in TA1, for something for the senior pilots.
Denied bond money to furloughees and retirees.
Agreed to unlimited 70 seat RJs.
And I'm sure that the list would be significantly longer if I put some effort into it. On the bright side, UALALPA did vote for the now industry standard furloughee medical/dental fund - just don't check the final voting results; it doesn't speak well for our UAL brothers. It passed by a razor, razor thin margin.
UALALPA has dumped a lot of poison in the well for UAL furloughees; I suspect that at least a few of us will find ourselves more loyal to our CAL brothers than our UAL brothers.
UCH management is not going to be furloughing from the UAL side while hiring on the CAL side. They can do the math and are aware of the associated costs.
A more logical and likely step for UCH is to shrink UAL roughly equal to age 65 retirements. UCH management can retire UAL 757s in a measured manner to match those pilot retirements. Plus, UCH has a pretty decent cushion in the number of flight hours that they can fly each UAL pilot - anywhere from minimum guarantee (65 line/70 reserve) to monthly maximum (89 widebody, 95 narrowbody). So there's no need to furlough from the UAL side of the house. If the average pilot at UAL is close to monthly maximums, UCH can retire a few UAL aircraft. If the average UAL pilot is close to minimum guarantee, there's no need to retire aircraft; simply allow age 65 to eliminate the surplus.
Now, step back for a moment. Now that CAL is hiring UAL furloughees, what is the incentive for UCH to grow the UAL side?
Keep this in mind - the CASM on the CAL side is less than on the UAL side of the house. Let me break it down to your daily life. Let's assume that your Porsche's (this is for the UAL pilots I flew with prior to being furloughed the second time - showing me pictures of Porsches, third wives, and boats, yet needed age 65 because their pension was wiped out) gas tank is empty. You can pay $3.69 for premium at the Chevron or $3.74 for premium at the Exxon across the street. Which gas are you going to use? The bottom line is that air travel, much like gasoline, is a commodity where very few people are loyal one brand. And since UCH can get their flying done for less on the CAL side of the house, that's where the flying will go.
My point here is that the UAL side will not grow until after JCBA. All growth will occur on the CAL side. At the same time, there will not be any further UAL furloughs unless CAL has furloughed all of their newly hired UAL refugees.
Now, let's step back another ten paces. UAL furloughees hired at CAL will not be on probation - including those who were on probation when furloughed from UAL. That means that they can vote in ALPA from day one. I propose that we make it very clear to ALPA that unless there is full restoration of furloughee longevity for pay AND benefits (benefits are more important to me than pay, as I'm on year 4), your vote will be NO.
With that in mind, I would encourage any UAL furloughee on the fence to accept a job a CAL.
SP and all UAL furloughees, we UAL furloughees can have some control over getting credit for furlough time. I think that we have a golden opportunity here to get furlough credit.
I don't know where CALALPA sits on furloughee longevity but from what I've read, they're a he11uva lot more loyal to their junior pilots. And since there are more than a few CAL ex-furloughees, I'm sure that we could reach critical mass very quickly.
Increased flying caps in C2003 by 10-15%, allowing UAL to furlough additional pilots.
Agreed to PBS in C2003, resulting in a 5-10% reduction in pilot staffing needs.
Traded away furloughee longevity, offered by the company in TA1, for something for the senior pilots.
Denied bond money to furloughees and retirees.
Agreed to unlimited 70 seat RJs.
And I'm sure that the list would be significantly longer if I put some effort into it. On the bright side, UALALPA did vote for the now industry standard furloughee medical/dental fund - just don't check the final voting results; it doesn't speak well for our UAL brothers. It passed by a razor, razor thin margin.
UALALPA has dumped a lot of poison in the well for UAL furloughees; I suspect that at least a few of us will find ourselves more loyal to our CAL brothers than our UAL brothers.
UCH management is not going to be furloughing from the UAL side while hiring on the CAL side. They can do the math and are aware of the associated costs.
A more logical and likely step for UCH is to shrink UAL roughly equal to age 65 retirements. UCH management can retire UAL 757s in a measured manner to match those pilot retirements. Plus, UCH has a pretty decent cushion in the number of flight hours that they can fly each UAL pilot - anywhere from minimum guarantee (65 line/70 reserve) to monthly maximum (89 widebody, 95 narrowbody). So there's no need to furlough from the UAL side of the house. If the average pilot at UAL is close to monthly maximums, UCH can retire a few UAL aircraft. If the average UAL pilot is close to minimum guarantee, there's no need to retire aircraft; simply allow age 65 to eliminate the surplus.
Now, step back for a moment. Now that CAL is hiring UAL furloughees, what is the incentive for UCH to grow the UAL side?
Keep this in mind - the CASM on the CAL side is less than on the UAL side of the house. Let me break it down to your daily life. Let's assume that your Porsche's (this is for the UAL pilots I flew with prior to being furloughed the second time - showing me pictures of Porsches, third wives, and boats, yet needed age 65 because their pension was wiped out) gas tank is empty. You can pay $3.69 for premium at the Chevron or $3.74 for premium at the Exxon across the street. Which gas are you going to use? The bottom line is that air travel, much like gasoline, is a commodity where very few people are loyal one brand. And since UCH can get their flying done for less on the CAL side of the house, that's where the flying will go.
My point here is that the UAL side will not grow until after JCBA. All growth will occur on the CAL side. At the same time, there will not be any further UAL furloughs unless CAL has furloughed all of their newly hired UAL refugees.
Now, let's step back another ten paces. UAL furloughees hired at CAL will not be on probation - including those who were on probation when furloughed from UAL. That means that they can vote in ALPA from day one. I propose that we make it very clear to ALPA that unless there is full restoration of furloughee longevity for pay AND benefits (benefits are more important to me than pay, as I'm on year 4), your vote will be NO.
With that in mind, I would encourage any UAL furloughee on the fence to accept a job a CAL.
SP and all UAL furloughees, we UAL furloughees can have some control over getting credit for furlough time. I think that we have a golden opportunity here to get furlough credit.
I don't know where CALALPA sits on furloughee longevity but from what I've read, they're a he11uva lot more loyal to their junior pilots. And since there are more than a few CAL ex-furloughees, I'm sure that we could reach critical mass very quickly.
First thanks for a very well thought out post. I completely support efforts to secure furlough credit time for all furloughed pilots (UAL/CAL) as an absolute minimum requirement. Scope, Furlough Credit, and Work Rules need to be in order on any TA before even looking at any pages with Pay Rates.
I would like to point out that the JCBA will be beneficial to both CAL and UAL pilots, and is clearly a common goal at this point. Pressure that can be applied by the UAL "new hire" pilots at CAL, would serve to benefit both groups of pilots in moving the process along much faster. The loyalty issue would be to both sides, and the sooner there are no sides the better.
On the issue of United Pilots, we are United Pilots.
We lack leverage, because we lack unity. We lack unity, because we don't really put it into practice. Our contracts embrace a reward system that has become so heavily skewed in favor of seniority, that it creates a huge divide among us. Seniority can certainly have a roll, but we have let it get way out of hand. Income, schedules, job security, and life style differences span a vast divide. We have made this once great career into a lottery game of hoping to pick a "winner". We are the ones that establish contracts with the painful and dire consequences for the large number of pilots that have to push the seniority reset button.
This is why the first pay rate I will look at is YEAR 1. It is also why I consider longevity an absolute must, even when I myself hit the max several years ago.
The absolute best career move WE can make, is to insure the job security and well being of all of those that work with US!
SP
10-11-2011, 11:23 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
10-11-2011, 11:30 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
SP, outstanding points on Scope and Work Rules.
My list for the JCBA:
1) Scope
2) Work Rules
3) Furlough Longevity Credit
.
.
.
199) Pay
I assume that we'll be going with CAL's scope and UAL's work rules. To do otherwise is foolish. Pay changes. Lose scope/work rules and those are almost impossible to recover.
My list for the JCBA:
1) Scope
2) Work Rules
3) Furlough Longevity Credit
.
.
.
199) Pay
I assume that we'll be going with CAL's scope and UAL's work rules. To do otherwise is foolish. Pay changes. Lose scope/work rules and those are almost impossible to recover.
10-11-2011, 11:41 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
I was surprised at how fast they burned through the furlough list to date. Much faster than I expected. I suspect that some were deferring recall and will accept it once they are free from other committments and/or have a decent pad below them.
I'm halfway through the list and am currently expecting to be in a March class; we'll see how that works out. If class size remains constant, I would expect the entire furlough list to have been gone through by next fall.
I don't exect a JCBA to be completed before late 2012; it's not in UCH management's interest to reach an agreement prior to being ready to merge operations. The big holdup is IT integration and from the little I've read on the subject, it sounds like it'll take another year.
10-11-2011, 11:54 AM
#37
Che Guevara
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
I think you need to do some more research. UAL is starting to take over our flying at both IAH and EWR.
Some examples are IAH-LIM. A UAL 767 crew flys in from SFO I believe and now does that flying. They will also start IAH-HNL-GUM flying as well on a UAL 777 shortly.
EWR is losing EWR-ZRH amongst other Europe flying to IAD UAL crews.
Two way street here my friend and expect it to continue and accelerate. Happened at DAL will happen here too.
Conspiracy theory busted.
Some examples are IAH-LIM. A UAL 767 crew flys in from SFO I believe and now does that flying. They will also start IAH-HNL-GUM flying as well on a UAL 777 shortly.
EWR is losing EWR-ZRH amongst other Europe flying to IAD UAL crews.
Two way street here my friend and expect it to continue and accelerate. Happened at DAL will happen here too.
Conspiracy theory busted.
Sending PM to you.
10-12-2011, 09:24 AM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
Frats,
Andy
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
