APC225

September 21, 2011

Dear Fellow Pilots,

Since the UAL/CAL merger was announced on May 3, 2010, your union leadership has worked tirelessly to expeditiously negotiate an industry-leading contract. Unfortunately it has become clear that the Company is not equally motivated in that regard. When management decided to make the summary of the company’s contract proposal public on June 24, 2011, it became apparent that the Company seems more intent on engaging in negotiations gamesmanship rather than working with us to reach a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement (JCBA). Line pilots saw vividly why we were unable to meet the original eight-week goal of reaching a JCBA as spelled out in the Transition and Process Agreement or why our union’s efforts to jumpstart negotiations last winter resulted in only slow progress. After seven months of bargaining on scheduling sections of the contract, the company still fails to understand a very basic tenet: United pilots will not accept concessions on work rules that survived bankruptcy.

On Monday, September 18, the UAL-MEC conducted a Special Meeting in Chicago and reviewed the recent Company process proposal which is outlined below. There has been much speculation and consternation amongst the pilot group about this proposal so it is vital that the pilot group has a complete understanding of what transpired. We have responded to the ‘non-normal” by aviating and navigating, and it is now time to communicate. This will provide the facts should history repeat itself and standard company propaganda follows.

On August 15, 2011, senior United HR management handed a letter to Continental MEC Chairman Captain Jay Pierce and to me suggesting ways they believed would help expedite a tentative agreement for a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The letter called for another concentrated period of negotiations (60-90 days) attended by the necessary principal participants who have the authority to reach an agreement. The letter also called for the two parties to agree to submit any issues that remain open after the concentrated negotiation period to final and binding arbitration before a mutually acceptable arbitrator. The letter further explained that the arbitrator and his/her decision would be required to follow mutually agreed parameters, which would be agreed to in writing between us and submitted to the arbitrator prior to our commencing the period of concentrated negotiations.

They also went on to say that we would establish a specific timetable for the conduct of the arbitration process and we would establish a specific date for the final determination by the arbitrator and the publication of his/her decision.

On September 6, 2011, Captain Pierce and I responded to HR management, reminding them that the Transition and Process Agreement specifies a process for joint negotiations, based on the mutual intent to conclude the joint collective bargaining agreement promptly, and expressed appreciation for sharing our desire to achieve a prompt agreement.

We explained that ALPA is prepared to accept the Company’s proposal to begin a concentrated period of negotiations attended by the necessary principal participants who have the authority to reach an agreement, while in turn asking the Company to agree to increase their commitment to the negotiations, with meeting days and hours to be put on an aggressive schedule in order to complete negotiations within a 60-day period commencing on September 12 and ending November 10, and that any agreement must be subject to MEC and membership ratification.

Captain Pierce and I also made clear that the second aspect of their proposal -- binding arbitration of open issues – raises several issues, including the need for membership ratification by our pilots for whatever agreement the parties reach.

We made it clear to the Company that the present agreements covering both pilot groups were products of either the bankruptcy process or the threat of same, and a fully consensual agreement is crucial to putting these chapters behind us.

We continued that if by November 30, despite our best efforts, the parties have not completed a tentative agreement that we should explore whether there are alternative mutually satisfactory means to accomplish our goal that would need to include membership ratification. We also suggested a deadline of Dec. 9 to come to an agreement on which course to take to expedite a tentative agreement.

We received a quick response from the company, telling us that they were disappointed in our response. Their letter said that ALPA had rejected a plan that would have guaranteed a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement by year’s end, and that the pilots’ and the company’s interests would have been protected appropriately by the proposal presented in their August 15, 2011 letter.

They also said ALPA’s outright rejection of binding arbitration was premature and missed the fundamental point of the Company’s two-step process proposal. They went on to say that ALPA’s rejection of the Company’s two-step proposal voids ALPA’s claim that the Company is “foot dragging” regarding the pace of negotiations. They said ALPA’s rejection removes our ability to claim that it is management’s actions that are delaying an agreement. Obviously, we will point out “foot dragging” when it is appropriate based on the actions or lack thereof at the negotiating table.

Management’s “guaranteed contract” comment is simply an attempt for the company to influence the pilot group. The simple fact is they are trying to change the subject from their failure to meet their Go Forward Plan goal regarding completing JCBAs with their employees by year end. However, it is clear that if we get Management at the negotiating table to simply recognize that the JCBA must be based on United’s CBA and fix the items that we and the CAL-MEC need fixed, we can lead by helping the company meet the Go Forward Plan. This will benefit our pilots, our passengers and our investors, and allow us all to focus our energies on our mutual goal of building the world’s leading airline.

Fraternally,
Chairman, United MEC

HSLD

The company agreed to the TPA last August with the promise of producing a JCBA by October 2010. They then engaged ALPA just enough to avoid a loud ALPA opposition voiced to the DOJ and subsequently received merger approval in October. In other words, ALPA got played.

So now U-CON comes to the union with a new promise while the old promise is still in effect. If we've learned one thing, it's that management lies (although I think we've all learned more than that).

I don't want "just a contract", I want an industry leading contract absent of ANY concessions, airtight scope, and with full retro-pay. Until that happens, UCON can choke on their lack of operational integration/efficiency.

APC225

The key statement in my mind. Goes to the "meat on the hook" philosophy. CAL work rules are infinitely flexible, and inexpensive to flex as well. CAL rules gives management cost advantages that they will not give up without a job action. UAL work rules are not writ from the mount, but they are less flexible and more expensive when they do have irregular ops.

I think the UAL MEC spent 6 months in shock at how bad CAL's rules are, realizing that the company wants to use them in the JCBA. And the company was in shock at how much more expensive UAL's work rules would be. Remember way last summer when the company said that UAL work rules would be the starting point? Ah, those were the days.

EWR73FO

Seems like we need to fly faster, work longer, VJM, arrive even earlier, save more gas, taxi quicker, do more for free on days off, and question nothing. It's working so far, right?

EWRflyr

I called all of this stuff on a previous thread someplace. I may need glasses but I could see this coming a mile away. The company really must think this pilot group is stupid.

OK, good. You have the ability to meet very frequently to get a deal done. Fine. ALPA is ready to do it and will agree to that.

Why would we agree to that? There is no incentive for the company to negotiate in good faith on anything that might cost them money.

No, it's premature to even consider binding arbitration with so many open items right now and the lack of will on the company's part to negotiate. How long has the company been holding certain proposals in their possession again?

The company made two offers: negotiate aggressively, more often and binding arbitration. We agreed to one (the one that gets us making progress on the contract), but not the other. We made a counter proposal and a compromise. Well, not really since we have always said we are willing to meet more often to get this done. We just want the agreement sent to the pilot group for a vote. So either the company has the ability to and is serious about meeting or it isn't and won't without strings attached.

ALPA is still eager and willing to meet more often as always. United-Continental, why can't you do the same? You obviously have time in your schedule the next couple of months from what your own letter stated. Are you going to "man up" and actually follow through anyway? Didn't think so.

You can try to spin this anyway you want, but "foot dragging" is as plain as the nose on my face.

APC225

http://unitednegotiations.com/employ...date-20110922/

September 22, 2011

Recently, ALPA distributed a communication mischaracterizing management’s motivation in proposing to ALPA’s leadership an alternative process for concluding joint contract negotiations promptly. While the Company’s motivation for the proposal should be obvious, as the proposal was a creative means to conclude an agreement promptly, we believe the correspondence speaks for itself and belies the deliberate mischaracterization of it by ALPA leaders. We have posted the letters United sent to Captain Morse and Captain Pierce below.

August 15, 2011 - United to Capt. Morse and Capt. Pierce
http://www.unitednegotiations.com/em...apt-Pierce.pdf

September 8, 2011 - United to Capt. Morse and Capt. Pierce
http://unitednegotiations.com/employ...apt-Pierce.pdf

Regularguy

Ladies and Gentlemen don't miss this statement it is key to the negotiations:

"it is clear that if we get Management at the negotiating table to simply recognize that the JCBA must be based on United’s CBA and fix the items that we and the CAL-MEC need fixed,"

To a CAL pilot many of the changes management are proposing are improvements on the CAL contract and to even get UAL's current CBA would be a huge improvement in work rules (12% someone said on this forum).

But the problem is Management wants to base all the sections on CAL's contract, which is a net loss for the majority of the combined pilot group (i.e. UAL pilots).

So how would BA look if the expedited negotiations failed? Probably somewhere between the current UAL/CAL contracts. Bad!

APC225

You hit the nail on the head. They want CAL rules, but would settle for little less than UAL rules. Will we? It'a gonna be a long road.

SoCalGuy

And this would be Jay and Wendy's response to the above.....

http://calmecweb.alpa.org/LinkClick....=1372&mid=4185

EWRflyr

Now, now, SoCalGuy, that is such an "inconvenient truth" to borrow a phrase from a former VP. Don't be so mean and bring facts into the discussion.

The following sentence from management's second letter speaks volumes about their view of us:

I don't know why, but that comment really ticked me off. It's like when I was younger and did something to upset my mother. She would turn to my dad and say, "You need to talk to your son about his (attitude, actions, etc.)!" It comes across as very similar to that. Could easily have said for "our" pilots which would have implied both sides have a vested interest in the pilot group. Clearly the wording is intended to place the blame squarely on ALPA, our MECs and our chairmen.