Negotiated profit sharing 2011
01-03-2012, 02:15 PM
#151
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
Why would Smisek give those "end around, overreaching" UAL pilots squat when management can just whipsaw both pilot groups now? That's really what this boils down to, and the reason for all the angst among the striped tie crowd. Some pilots obliviometers are PEGGED! Did anyone ever consider that perhaps retro PS for the CAL pilots could have been included in some fashion in the JCBA? Nah, didn't think so. Let's just toss in the towel now! Dudes, 5% is nothing more than an insult.
Gee, maybe in a few months they'll dangle a tasty carrot in front of the L-UAL pukes for no other reason than to foment dissent in EWR, IAH, CLE (and lets not forget former UAL 737 domicle) LAX..........Nah....they'd never do that! Besides, there are smiling faces on Skynet and some of them are wearing hats!
FTP/FUPM!
James has a headache.
Gee, maybe in a few months they'll dangle a tasty carrot in front of the L-UAL pukes for no other reason than to foment dissent in EWR, IAH, CLE (and lets not forget former UAL 737 domicle) LAX..........Nah....they'd never do that! Besides, there are smiling faces on Skynet and some of them are wearing hats!
FTP/FUPM!
James has a headache.
Last edited by oldmako; 01-03-2012 at 03:20 PM.
01-03-2012, 03:38 PM
#152
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: EWR B737FO
Posts: 225
Do you really think the company would have settled for a March. 2012 JCBA date, or else pay CAL pay rates' and ratio of Domicile protections given the pieces of the contract that are open (scheduling, compensation, SCOPE etc..) and a broken IT network. Why would they say yes, when they are legal to say no and there is no pending operational impacts. What did either MEC have in the chamber that would force the company to move? I would say very little? PerHaps the training lawsuit, if UA had won? Dont blame the lack of leverage on the CAL MEC or pilots because they went after PS for their pilots per our direction. ..We got a JCBA to get done and I hope both groups are ready to say NO if it doesn't meet each pilot group goals..
01-03-2012, 03:51 PM
#153
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 239
This is where I am getting confused. What opportunity was present that would have advanced the JCBA? How would have turning down this grievance settlement have advanced the JCBA? Whether or not the CAL pilots have profit sharing, it does not affect our leverage in obtaining a new contract.
On the other hand, had the UAL MEC pushed to advance the TPA as written, both Unions could have gained some negotiating leverage towards a JCBA in that the UAL pilots would have had block hour protections, thus limiting the Company's ability to make major fleet/operational shifts.
On the other hand, had the UAL MEC pushed to advance the TPA as written, both Unions could have gained some negotiating leverage towards a JCBA in that the UAL pilots would have had block hour protections, thus limiting the Company's ability to make major fleet/operational shifts.
The expiring items in your TPA (ratios/domicile protection) are of value to the company. Apparently, the 767 sale grievance is something the company did not want to move forward.
With the above in mind, wouldn't it give BOTH pilot groups added leverage to conclude the JCBA faster if the company did not have freedom to change the flying ratio or move aircraft to the other sides domicile? I think you already agreed to that.
Now I'm speculating here, but I would be willing to bet that the demand for CAL rates for UAL pilots was solely as a response to the monetary demand first brought forth by Pierce. Had the PS been off the table and the only thing the combined group wanted was the extension of all provisions of your TPA, you would have gotten it...and your leverage.
It seems to me if your MEC chairman chose to go shoulder to shoulder (that leverage with unity idea) with the UA MEC chairman and say "we'll remove our grievance if all stipulations in the TPA are extended and expire only when a JCBA is ratified" it would be leverage to conclude a JCBA quicker. And, this is just as important, show clearly to mgmt that the two groups are unified and should not expect the ability to divide and conquer.
Extending the provisions in your TPA would have been valuable to BOTH sides, especially the commuting to new bases...which I'm sure NO ONE wants. Is a few grand worth sending a whole bunch of you to the commuting ranks? I think you will find that this will cost you (and everybody) more..a whole lot more... in the long run.
I'm an outsider but it sure looks like this was not the best move for the collective long term goal. But it sure helps Pierces' political popularity. Hmm.
01-03-2012, 03:54 PM
#154
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: 747 Captain, retired
Posts: 928
When word got around that the CAL pilots would be the ONLY employee group to not share in PS'ing out of 80,000+ employees, it raised a LOT of tempers. Once again we were about to get kicked in the 'nads. We didn't feel that getting screwed once again was going to get us anywhere, so the pilots let Jay and anyone else know that we wanted what was due to us. How he went about getting it was his concern. He got it, and now our "equals" at UAL say "no fair". I guess we should just pitch a fit the next time the UAL pilots get something we don't.................
01-03-2012, 03:56 PM
#155
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
No one doesn't want profit sharing. But some understand long term vice short term benefits. For those looking forward to a retro check (many multiples of PS), higher pay scales, and better work rules, there is a definite disappointment that these are likely delayed due to this deal. I'm finding a loose correlation with this and seat seniority. The less senior and more abused the pilot, the less enamored they are with a $5k check knowing they're going to be living more of the same, longer.
Last edited by APC225; 01-03-2012 at 06:20 PM.
01-03-2012, 04:05 PM
#156
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: EWR B737FO
Posts: 225
You answered your own question in your last paragraph.
The expiring items in your TPA (ratios/domicile protection) are of value to the company. Apparently, the 767 sale grievance is something the company did not want to move forward.
With the above in mind, wouldn't it give BOTH pilot groups added leverage to conclude the JCBA faster if the company did not have freedom to change the flying ratio or move aircraft to the other sides domicile? I think you already agreed to that.
Now I'm speculating here, but I would be willing to bet that the demand for CAL rates for UAL pilots was solely as a response to the monetary demand first brought forth by Pierce. Had the PS been off the table and the only thing the combined group wanted was the extension of all provisions of your TPA, you would have gotten it...and your leverage.
It seems to me if your MEC chairman chose to go shoulder to shoulder (that leverage with unity idea) with the UA MEC chairman and say "we'll remove our grievance if all stipulations in the TPA are extended and expire only when a JCBA is ratified" it would be leverage to conclude a JCBA quicker. And, this is just as important, show clearly to mgmt that the two groups are unified and should not expect the ability to divide and conquer.
Extending the provisions in your TPA would have been valuable to BOTH sides, especially the commuting to new bases...which I'm sure NO ONE wants. Is a few grand worth sending a whole bunch of you to the commuting ranks? I think you will find that this will cost you (and everybody) more..a whole lot more... in the long run.
I'm an outsider but it sure looks like this was not the best move for the collective long term goal. But it sure helps Pierces' political popularity. Hmm.
The expiring items in your TPA (ratios/domicile protection) are of value to the company. Apparently, the 767 sale grievance is something the company did not want to move forward.
With the above in mind, wouldn't it give BOTH pilot groups added leverage to conclude the JCBA faster if the company did not have freedom to change the flying ratio or move aircraft to the other sides domicile? I think you already agreed to that.
Now I'm speculating here, but I would be willing to bet that the demand for CAL rates for UAL pilots was solely as a response to the monetary demand first brought forth by Pierce. Had the PS been off the table and the only thing the combined group wanted was the extension of all provisions of your TPA, you would have gotten it...and your leverage.
It seems to me if your MEC chairman chose to go shoulder to shoulder (that leverage with unity idea) with the UA MEC chairman and say "we'll remove our grievance if all stipulations in the TPA are extended and expire only when a JCBA is ratified" it would be leverage to conclude a JCBA quicker. And, this is just as important, show clearly to mgmt that the two groups are unified and should not expect the ability to divide and conquer.
Extending the provisions in your TPA would have been valuable to BOTH sides, especially the commuting to new bases...which I'm sure NO ONE wants. Is a few grand worth sending a whole bunch of you to the commuting ranks? I think you will find that this will cost you (and everybody) more..a whole lot more... in the long run.
I'm an outsider but it sure looks like this was not the best move for the collective long term goal. But it sure helps Pierces' political popularity. Hmm.
01-03-2012, 04:15 PM
#157
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 621
You answered your own question in your last paragraph.
The expiring items in your TPA (ratios/domicile protection) are of value to the company. Apparently, the 767 sale grievance is something the company did not want to move forward.
The Profit sharing was also part of the TPA.
With the above in mind, wouldn't it give BOTH pilot groups added leverage to conclude the JCBA faster if the company did not have freedom to change the flying ratio or move aircraft to the other sides domicile? I think you already agreed to that.
CAL's contract protect our block hours 100%. UAL has no such protection. This is why getting such protection would help both groups.
Now I'm speculating here, but I would be willing to bet that the demand for CAL rates for UAL pilots was solely as a response to the monetary demand first brought forth by Pierce. Had the PS been off the table and the only thing the combined group wanted was the extension of all provisions of your TPA, you would have gotten it...and your leverage.
Again, PS was part of the original TPA. The pay rate increase demanded by UAL was completely out of left field.
It seems to me if your MEC chairman chose to go shoulder to shoulder (that leverage with unity idea) with the UA MEC chairman and say "we'll remove our grievance if all stipulations in the TPA are extended and expire only when a JCBA is ratified" it would be leverage to conclude a JCBA quicker. And, this is just as important, show clearly to mgmt that the two groups are unified and should not expect the ability to divide and conquer.
This is exactly what they were trying to do until UAL changed their demands.
Extending the provisions in your TPA would have been valuable to BOTH sides, especially the commuting to new bases...which I'm sure NO ONE wants. Is a few grand worth sending a whole bunch of you to the commuting ranks? I think you will find that this will cost you (and everybody) more..a whole lot more... in the long run.
Are you even aware of what we are talking about?
I'm an outsider but it sure looks like this was not the best move for the collective long term goal. But it sure helps Pierces' political popularity. Hmm.
The expiring items in your TPA (ratios/domicile protection) are of value to the company. Apparently, the 767 sale grievance is something the company did not want to move forward.
The Profit sharing was also part of the TPA.
CAL's contract protect our block hours 100%. UAL has no such protection. This is why getting such protection would help both groups.
Again, PS was part of the original TPA. The pay rate increase demanded by UAL was completely out of left field.
This is exactly what they were trying to do until UAL changed their demands.
Are you even aware of what we are talking about?
01-03-2012, 04:18 PM
#158
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: B-777 left
Posts: 1,415
No one doesn't want profit sharing. But some understand long term vice short term benefits. For those looking forward to a retro check (many multiples of PS), higher pay scales, and better work rules, there is a definite disappointment that these are likely delayed due to this deal. I'm finding a loose correlation with this and seat seniority. The less senior and more abused the pilot, the less enamored they are with a $5k check knowing they're going to living more of the same, longer.
01-03-2012, 04:18 PM
#159
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 621
You do know the CAL pay rates would have only kicked-in at date certain if we didn't have a JCBA. The company had Peirce in their pocket at this point and didn't need to go any further.
It's irrelevent when they kicked in. The pay increase was never part of the original TPA. Maybe the CAL side should have asked for an ice-cream party with ponies. Why not, since we are all overreaching now.
Pierce stabbed the CAL/UAL pilots in the BACK with this move!
It's irrelevent when they kicked in. The pay increase was never part of the original TPA. Maybe the CAL side should have asked for an ice-cream party with ponies. Why not, since we are all overreaching now.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
