Baron50

One point that you are missing and that the 2003 MEC ignored is that the BK judge's jurisdiction only existed until the company exited BK. Therefore, it was highly improbable that the judge could have mandated a labor contract duration beyond that point unless we agreed. The argument was, that if the labor contract was amendable on BK exit, the greedy Wall Street bankers would balk at lending the money to exit. So the majority MEC not only sold out the contract, but also ensured that the concessions would be permanent.

It was likely that if the management's contract had been imposed it would have been so egregious that even the concessionist would have developed a back bone to fix it. That in fact was the case in 2007, although on a smaller scale. The Flight Attendants proved the point and did not suffer the damage that was self inflicted by the pilots.

The primary reason that UAL pilots gave up 60 years of hard won contractual improvements (twice) was simple fear. No matter how hard a few people tried to explain that the risk of letting the Judge decide by just saying NO was minimal, it was to no avail. The pilots could not hear the message because of the noise of their knees chattering. The specter of losing their jobs and having to start over, a la EAL, PAA, was too much for them to contemplate. This is a generation that is risk adverse. They never wanted to understand intrinsic value of the frequent flyer program and the overall corporate strategy of strategic bankruptcy, primarily to dump defined benefit pensions. Just look at Wall Street and the talking heads plant the idea that AMR must go bankrupt to get rid of the pensions.

The MEC was guilty of poor leadership, but ALPA staff was also complicit in scaring the membership to vote for the BK contract because it served their purposes. Their jobs would have been threatened if UAL went CH7, so even if the actual threat was minimal there was no point in taking any chances, at least in their minds.

gettinbumped

Actually, I didn't miss the point. I was well aware that the contract would have expired on Ch11 exit. But really, as demonstrated by AMR particularly, that means nothing. The contract would have expired, and we would have been bound by the RLA to continue with it until a new one was negotiated. What decade do you think that would have been in? Right now UAX would be flying E190's around for us in numbers we can probably only dream of. Worth the risk of calling that bluff? Dunno. But let's look at ALPA's vs UAL management's track record in court. When was the last suit we actually WON?

APC225

Well, here it is.

Morse October 2011 Video

Baron50

Well, so long as we are speculating on what never happened, how about the BK Judge sending the parties back to the table or the people who had a lot of money to lose insisting that management negotiate instead of seeking revenge for the summer of love. Possibly, had we not rolled over in 2003, we would not have seen the 2005 hit. Even their BK attorney admitted later that they had a two step strategy to get the pension. Remarkably some of the MEC predicted it.

After the exit, there was a small window where we had an opportunity to improve the contract, unfortunately in the short sighted rush to "save the company" we were stuck with the BK contract until the furloughs became the focus.

I agree, we should never depend on the courts to save us. They are only politicos for the party that put them there, and like the public, they have no sympathy for our issues. It's about cheap fares and slapping labor down for these people.

It should be clear by now, there will not be a contract until the company feels the pressure from their bankers to avoid financial pain. In other words, a strike. The sooner the MEC leadership is replaced with those that recognize this and starts educating the pilots as to why and how they can be successful at shutting down the operation, the sooner you will have an agreement. The notion that the government will not let United strike is nonsense. The law requires the mediator to eventually release the parties, and if a PEB is invoked, it has a 60 or 90 day time limit. So, if the union really wants to strike it can be done. The fact is, ALPA does not want you to strike, too risky for them. UAL is their cash cow. That is no different than 1985.

You will hear that Obama does not want any strikes before the election, or the economic environment is not right, or the pilots are not ready. These are all excuses, the environment will never be right for some people, but the majority can be brought along by education and good leadership. The first item that should be on the agenda for next MEC chairman is to get a 96% strike authorization. That is within the rules of the RLA and the TRO judge has nothing to say about it.

El10

I agree that this deal will get done once the economics become in play. Those economics come into play once the SOC is done. That will be what gets us leverage. That has true measurement to a BOD and shareholders. I believe the delay in dealing with anything in regards to work rules and compensation has been differed until they recapture them through synergies unlocked by SOC.

Lets not let a good opportunity to close the deal in the upcoming window. Lets just look what happened at the airline with the best labor relations and how they handled negocaiations with Airtran pilots. If we look at this as a business transaction and not an emotional one we will end up on the upside financially and in measurable quality of life.

The right has controlled the message to the public that any demonstration by a union is ignored. We need to adjust to this reality if we believe winning the public opinion poll is important.

gettinbumped

Strongly agree with all regarding strike, MEC and the like.

The only thing I'm dubious of is an economic cost to the company of actually getting the 1113c approved by the judge. I just don't see it that way, and it seems to me Wall Street would enjoy seeing us take it up the kazoo just as much as our management. Having a contract negotiation after exit I doubt would have been much of a deterrent. We will never know, I suppose

Coach67

Not excuses ... Sat's Wallstreet already had reported a PEB appointed for a Railroad Labor dispute.

Baron50

It is only part of a process, a delay designed to resolve the dispute. Unless the law is changed, we have the right to strike, PEB's are short term, and temporary.

When slowing down the production line was an available option, strikes were less desirable. However, management choose to limit that tool by running to the courts for TRO's. The unintended consequence of that, is they made a strike the only option to exercise our collective bargaining rights.

Baron50

Has your "let's all get along" ideology produced a contract? Management has only one goal, and that is to make money for the shareholders. They will not share it with you unless you make them. The merger or SOC does not give you leverage, you have to produce leverage by inflicting pain on them. That pain is putting the airplanes on the ground, tell the managers to learn to fly.

It is the MEC's fault that they have allowed the membership to buy into this "B" school clap trap that you are espousing. What they should have been doing is educating the pilots that management sees you as a blue collar machine operator, a necessary evil to produce RPMs. They did not do that because a minority controlled the leadership. That group is adverse to conflict and afraid to exercise the power they have.

The first step for the new MEC Chairman is to erase the concept held by some pilots that all we have to do is negotiate, cooperate and they will give us an eye watering industry leading contract. The MEC should be telling you to save your money, be prepared for multiple shut downs and focus on strike preparations.

Wendy's video is an embarrassment. This is the first time in my memory that a Chairman has whined to the pilots that she could not do her job. She knew when she was elected that her labor philosophy did not have majority support. She allowed a small cabal in Chicago and a few boutique domiciles to elect her. She could not govern because those people owned her and they are only pretending to be labor leaders.

Public opinion is not important, they hate labor and want a cheap ticket. We do need to "adjust to this reality" but reality is no one is going to help you but yourself and it is not easy.

LeeFXDWG

bumped,

Wrong, the 1113c "dream sheet" from the company became nothing once the required negotiations went into play. Wedoff could not have ruled on anything other than the "last/best offer" from the company in the required negotiations. Not the original term sheet. In other words, you would have gotten the same contract with a "amendable date" of BK exit. Doesn't mean you'd have a contract today. But, you would have been in section 6 since that date. And, that much closer to release.

This is not interpretation but precedent. The "contract" would have been no worse than the one you have, and would be open for renegotiation once the company exited.

Now, if you want to talk about the merits of "fair and equitable," then in my opinion, Wedoff could have never ruled in the company's favor in an 1113c ruling based on the percentage of concessions being sought from the pilots relative to the other groups. That is of course based upon competant legal counsel.......we had Cohen Weiss and Sh*thead.....same folks TWA had.

Their legal scorecard since the 70's isn't too impressive. For some reason ALPA Nat'l endorses them. They are a labor law firm and never should have been the lead in the BK process.

Frats,
Lee