Negotiated profit sharing 2011
01-04-2012, 04:39 AM
#171
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2011
Posts: 26
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ma...tml#post237583
Check this link to his post.
I must stand corrected, I did find the post I was thinking about. EWRBASEDPILOT was who I was thinking of, but I admit to being mistaken. Jason Baron appears to be CALEWR.
Check this link to his post.
I must stand corrected, I did find the post I was thinking about. EWRBASEDPILOT was who I was thinking of, but I admit to being mistaken. Jason Baron appears to be CALEWR.
01-04-2012, 04:46 AM
#172
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
That's my point. I don't really believe the whole issue is status quo. As I've said before, I think no-furlough and block hour ratio protection are worth MUCH more than my crappy little profit sharing check and apparently this is what was originally on the table. Then, from what I understand, the UAL MEC Chair went back and double-downed by throwing domicile fences and CAL pay rates on the table as well. If all this had transpired I highly doubt I would hear one complaint about "status quo" from any UAL guys. Yet here we are.
You "think" furlough and block hour protection are worth > $40 million. The company was willing to offer no furlough and block hour protection. Base protection was off the table. Why? The company has the intention to move airplanes and will not give up that right. Under the current economic landscape, they do not intend to furlough or park a large amount of the UAL fleet. Europe tanks, the Middle East implodes, then all bets are off.
How does one double down on something that is essentially worth nothing?
You are correct that if we had received a small pay raise, the status quo would not have been broken. Pay rates are a quantifiable offer.You get $40 million in bonuses and we get a $40 million pay raise. Works for me.
01-04-2012, 05:31 AM
#174
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: EWR B737FO
Posts: 225
Really pathetic. Whipsawing and animosity. Just what management wants to hear. Delay delay delay. Read what the latest United Daily states today regarding progress that management hopes to achieve with union-represented employees. Essentially, "we hope to reach agreements with many of them this year". Not all. Certainly not the pilots. Why should they with little side deals agreed to so easily?
Divide and conquer. CRAP!
I've been on furlough for 9 years now. You guys happy with your measly ONE YEAR profit sharing check now?
Damn it. ::furious::
SCR
Divide and conquer. CRAP!
I've been on furlough for 9 years now. You guys happy with your measly ONE YEAR profit sharing check now?
Damn it. ::furious::
SCR
01-04-2012, 05:32 AM
#175
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 621
Ok, correct me if I'm wrong but that stipulation had an expiration date that was agreed upon by CALAPA, did it not? Do you mean to say you are entitled to it anyway? And, if it was something that you were not entitled to anymore how is that different than the pay rates UAL was asking for? Sounds like left field vs. right field
I agree, it prevents whipsawing... if that is what you mean to say. Is it?
Huh, I thought it was Pierce's initial push for the $40M PS payout that opened your TPA up. Am I wrong? If so, who opened it up and what did they want?
Sure, isn't the goal a joint, much improved JCBA? My comment on costing you more has to do with the loss of leverage now and how that could manifest in the final JCBA.
Not sure if you have thought about how important your JCBA is for EVERYONE in the industry. Scope,work rules, pay. Future contracts will be bargained off of this one and that is why those who seemingly shouldn't be interested how this plays out, are. Yeah.. we care. We ALL should.
@Slammer. I disagree. There was an opportunity for more leverage and it has been squandered for some shekles. I remembering the paybanding issue here last summer or fall. I recall UA-ALPA did not want paybanding and wanting to remove the ones they had...CAL wanted it. Who compromised for the sake of moving forward? I don't think it was CAL. Trust? My buddies tell me CAL wanted to move the 767 into the 400 pay and the 737-900 into the 757 for SLI..and now want to collect UAL W2's, seemingly for SLI as well.. Trust? Or is this not true?
01-04-2012, 06:01 AM
#176
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 94
That animosity, that divide-and-conquer atmosphere we are all choking in now has put a JCBA years away, if it happens at all (just look at the happy Easties/Westies).
Which means my recall to UAL isn't happening anytime soon.
Why should management care? Delay, delay, delay. "Synergies related to the merger"? Ask Doug Parker at US Airways how he feels about this. It's business as usual to him--the new normal.
All for one measly year of profit sharing. ::still furious::
SCR
01-04-2012, 06:39 AM
#178
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: 737 CAPT
Posts: 1,903
Originally Posted by boxer6
@Slammer. I disagree. There was an opportunity for more leverage and it has been squandered for some shekles. I remembering the paybanding issue here last summer or fall. I recall UA-ALPA did not want paybanding and wanting to remove the ones they had...CAL wanted it. Who compromised for the sake of moving forward? I don't think it was CAL. Trust? My buddies tell me CAL wanted to move the 767 into the 400 pay and the 737-900 into the 757 for SLI..and now want to collect UAL W2's, seemingly for SLI as well.. Trust? Or is this not true?
01-04-2012, 08:20 AM
#179
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 239
If your merger committee wants our W2 information, they can have it. They can have anything they want to argue their case. I could care less. My merger committee needs to be fighting for me and your merger committee should be fighting for you. That is supposed to be a professional, but adversarial, process....unlike the JNC. I really don't see what "trust" has to do with SLI and each side presenting their case. I would expect both sides to come up with whatever methods, evidence, arguments, etc. that they can to get the best outcome for their respective pilots. If your merger committee isn't doing that, maybe the question of trust needs to be directed at your side of the table and not ours.
01-04-2012, 08:43 AM
#180
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: EWR B737FO
Posts: 225
Okay, I'll blame it on the fact that Jay Pierce (working for the L-CAL guys) just negotiated a $40 million end-around the L-UAL "brothers" ( ::sigh:: ) which has taken the friggin' LID off of a smelly dumpster full of animosity between L-UAL and L-CAL pilots because the L-UAL guys got nothing.
That animosity, that divide-and-conquer atmosphere we are all choking in now has put a JCBA years away, if it happens at all (just look at the happy Easties/Westies).
Which means my recall to UAL isn't happening anytime soon.
Why should management care? Delay, delay, delay. "Synergies related to the merger"? Ask Doug Parker at US Airways how he feels about this. It's business as usual to him--the new normal.
All for one measly year of profit sharing. ::still furious::
SCR
That animosity, that divide-and-conquer atmosphere we are all choking in now has put a JCBA years away, if it happens at all (just look at the happy Easties/Westies).
Which means my recall to UAL isn't happening anytime soon.
Why should management care? Delay, delay, delay. "Synergies related to the merger"? Ask Doug Parker at US Airways how he feels about this. It's business as usual to him--the new normal.
All for one measly year of profit sharing. ::still furious::
SCR
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
