Negotiated profit sharing 2011
12-30-2011, 02:34 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 181
Negotiated profit sharing 2011
As per the MEC update, LCAL pilots are included in profit sharing in return for dropping the 767-200 sale grievance.
Why, oh why, do we negotiate ANYTHING for something that is by definition a reward paid to employees to incentivize effort in making the Company profitable? This is another blown opportunity to give schmisek the finger. Super.
Why, oh why, do we negotiate ANYTHING for something that is by definition a reward paid to employees to incentivize effort in making the Company profitable? This is another blown opportunity to give schmisek the finger. Super.
12-30-2011, 02:52 PM
#4
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
The "whole" story.....
CAL-MEC CHAIRMAN'S UPDATE (12-30-2011)
A few weeks ago, I reported to you that we were in discussions with management designed to find a way for Continental pilots to participate in the 2011 profit sharing plan. Today I am pleased to advise you that we have been successful. Our pilots will indeed be participants in that plan and will receive profit sharing checks on Feb. 14. Given our continued sacrifices and efforts, our inclusion in the profit sharing plan is the only proper course of action that could have been contemplated. That said, as you all know, in the world we live in, things are seldom settled that simply and it is oftentimes difficult to part with those things that each side has negotiated for. The litmus test for management action more often than not is economic in nature and not based solely on right versus wrong. In this case, however, both the company and ALPA went into these discussions with an agreed-upon premise that it was in everyone’s best interest for all employee groups to participate in the Company’s prosperity.
Everything we achieve, whether contractually or otherwise, we do so through tenacity, hard work and strategic action designed to provide benefit for the pilot group. The effort to include all pilots working under the umbrella of United Continental Holdings, Inc. in the corporate profit sharing plan was no different. Thus, under the direction of your elected representatives, your union carefully weighed the avenues available to secure profit sharing, ultimately electing to capitalize on the outstanding B-767-200 aircraft sales grievance. The discussions with the Company were successful, and in the best interests of the Continental pilots as a group, we settled the B-767-200 aircraft sales grievance in exchange for being included in the 2011 profit sharing plan.
Some may question whether we gave up something or even too much in order to be included in the profit sharing plan for this year. The truth is that each time a decision is made, whatever the issue, the options that were not selected are “given up.” Such is the nature of decisions. What is important to remember is that not all options are desirable – the goal of strategic decision making is to choose the best possible outcome given the circumstances. Let me elaborate. We had two unresolved Scope grievances at the end of the year, one relating to twin-aisle block hour non-compliance and the other regarding the sale of B-767-200 aircraft. We decided to entertain settling the B-767-200 sale grievance (but not the twin-aisle block hour grievance) in pursuit of profit sharing. While neither our contract nor the Transition and Process Agreement (TPA) precludes the Company from selling aircraft, our contract precludes them from doing so if it is related to the merger (but does not preclude them from doing so for economic reasons not related to the complete transaction). In other words, our argument in this grievance was that it was only with the addition of the UAL aircraft, due to the merger, that the B-767-200 became a surplus aircraft, lending them to the possibility of disposal. What the Company argued was that the aircraft was meant to be replaced by the B-787 (unrelated to the merger). We have never argued against this point, as we have been told for quite some time that this was the plan. However, our position was that the B-787 had not yet arrived and therefore, the contemplated sale was premature.
After filing the two grievances (and a counter grievance filed by the Company), we found ourselves with basically three grievances that we were prepping, briefing and expecting a response to, all at once. (To date we have yet to hear the arbitrator’s ruling on these grievances, but we expect them to come at any day.) We also found ourselves nearing the end of the year with a committed desire and direction from the MEC to secure profit sharing for the Continental pilots for FY 2011.
Since we settled this particular grievance, we will never know the arbitrator’s decision. We won’t know if his decision would have been in our favor, management’s, or if he would have rendered a compromise decision, as arbitrators are prone to do. I do, however, think it is important to tell you how we had valued this grievance as this was one component of the decision making process. On one end is a zero value, obviously the value if we had lost. Under the best scenario, we determined a total dollar value of $180,710 per month per aircraft should the arbitrator rule that we be made completely whole for the loss of flying due to the sale of the B-767-200s. Now to be sure, the reason the grievance was filed wasn’t just about dollars and potential lost flying. It was about stopping something we felt ran afoul of our collective bargaining agreement. We wanted the potential sale of the aircraft to stop. Unfortunately, two aircraft left the property during the dispute process (an expedited process at that) and we were faced with the real possibility that even should we win on the merits of the case, the arbitrator would not (as prior precedent would seem to indicate) force the Company to reverse the disposal of an asset (buy the aircraft back). The arbitrator could perhaps stop future sales, but there are no more scheduled sales until mid 2012. This timeline, interestingly enough, is around the same time that the B-787 is due to be delivered. As you might recall, we recognize the B-787 as a replacement for the B-767-200. So, even if the future sales were temporarily halted, they could potentially resume in a matter of weeks from when they are projected to be sold now.
So, the strategic decision before us was fairly straightforward. We had a B-767-200 aircraft sale grievance that if we had won on every point, might have been worth $180,710 per aircraft per month in terms of lost flying and might have stopped the sale of aircraft in 2012 for a short period of time. The same grievance held a potential value of $0 if we lost. In contrast, we were seeking a way to secure tens of millions of dollars in profit sharing for the pilots of Continental Airlines. I believe that given the options before us, the right strategic decision was made. Just so you are aware, this money did not -- I want to repeat that statement-- did not, come out of other employees’ profit sharing amounts. Absent this agreement, this is money that would have gone right back into the Company coffers. I would rather that the money be used to rightfully reward the Continental pilots, whose contributions to the success of our airline should be recognized.
I am pleased to report that the Continental pilots will be included in the 2011 profit sharing plan. I think a prudent person will look at the facts and understand the decision that was made. For those of you who wanted to draw a hard line in the sand on this issue, I respect your opinion and your right to feel the way you do. I simply ask that you respect the opinion of those pilots who are interested in receiving profit sharing for the benefit of themselves and their families. Nonetheless, I want to offer those pilots who indicated that they did not want to participate in profit sharing an alternative. We have a charitable organization set up known as Pilots for Kids; many of you are familiar with this program already. This is a qualified charity under IRS rules and any donation is tax deductible. For any pilot who donates his or her profit sharing check to the Pilots for Kids organization, he or she will get a special mention of honor in the first edition of the Position Report following the award of the profit sharing checks. This is a true win/win scenario, both for the pilots and the kids.
Normally this time each year, I talk about accomplishments of the outgoing year and my thoughts for the upcoming year. I think this year, I will pass on reflections of 2011 and move straight to my predictions for 2012. Above all else, it is vitally important to our Company’s success that we get the JCBA finished. I am hopeful that successfully reaching agreement on profit sharing might prove to be a catalyst for movement by management at the table. Another year of difficult negotiations and the resultant increased angst serves no one’s best interests. Absent a JCBA and the resulting ability to staff one airline properly instead of continuing operations as two separate airlines improperly, all that angst will be exacerbated by another year of staffing shortfalls that will only get worse as the Age 65 rule catches up to us next December. The regulatory changes dealing with Flight Time and Duty Time rules are now defined. There are no other viable excuses to be made for continued procrastination on negotiating the Scheduling-related sections. We should expect -- no, demand -- real progress in the first quarter of 2012 and finality to the JCBA negotiations soon thereafter.
A few weeks ago, I reported to you that we were in discussions with management designed to find a way for Continental pilots to participate in the 2011 profit sharing plan. Today I am pleased to advise you that we have been successful. Our pilots will indeed be participants in that plan and will receive profit sharing checks on Feb. 14. Given our continued sacrifices and efforts, our inclusion in the profit sharing plan is the only proper course of action that could have been contemplated. That said, as you all know, in the world we live in, things are seldom settled that simply and it is oftentimes difficult to part with those things that each side has negotiated for. The litmus test for management action more often than not is economic in nature and not based solely on right versus wrong. In this case, however, both the company and ALPA went into these discussions with an agreed-upon premise that it was in everyone’s best interest for all employee groups to participate in the Company’s prosperity.
Everything we achieve, whether contractually or otherwise, we do so through tenacity, hard work and strategic action designed to provide benefit for the pilot group. The effort to include all pilots working under the umbrella of United Continental Holdings, Inc. in the corporate profit sharing plan was no different. Thus, under the direction of your elected representatives, your union carefully weighed the avenues available to secure profit sharing, ultimately electing to capitalize on the outstanding B-767-200 aircraft sales grievance. The discussions with the Company were successful, and in the best interests of the Continental pilots as a group, we settled the B-767-200 aircraft sales grievance in exchange for being included in the 2011 profit sharing plan.
Some may question whether we gave up something or even too much in order to be included in the profit sharing plan for this year. The truth is that each time a decision is made, whatever the issue, the options that were not selected are “given up.” Such is the nature of decisions. What is important to remember is that not all options are desirable – the goal of strategic decision making is to choose the best possible outcome given the circumstances. Let me elaborate. We had two unresolved Scope grievances at the end of the year, one relating to twin-aisle block hour non-compliance and the other regarding the sale of B-767-200 aircraft. We decided to entertain settling the B-767-200 sale grievance (but not the twin-aisle block hour grievance) in pursuit of profit sharing. While neither our contract nor the Transition and Process Agreement (TPA) precludes the Company from selling aircraft, our contract precludes them from doing so if it is related to the merger (but does not preclude them from doing so for economic reasons not related to the complete transaction). In other words, our argument in this grievance was that it was only with the addition of the UAL aircraft, due to the merger, that the B-767-200 became a surplus aircraft, lending them to the possibility of disposal. What the Company argued was that the aircraft was meant to be replaced by the B-787 (unrelated to the merger). We have never argued against this point, as we have been told for quite some time that this was the plan. However, our position was that the B-787 had not yet arrived and therefore, the contemplated sale was premature.
After filing the two grievances (and a counter grievance filed by the Company), we found ourselves with basically three grievances that we were prepping, briefing and expecting a response to, all at once. (To date we have yet to hear the arbitrator’s ruling on these grievances, but we expect them to come at any day.) We also found ourselves nearing the end of the year with a committed desire and direction from the MEC to secure profit sharing for the Continental pilots for FY 2011.
Since we settled this particular grievance, we will never know the arbitrator’s decision. We won’t know if his decision would have been in our favor, management’s, or if he would have rendered a compromise decision, as arbitrators are prone to do. I do, however, think it is important to tell you how we had valued this grievance as this was one component of the decision making process. On one end is a zero value, obviously the value if we had lost. Under the best scenario, we determined a total dollar value of $180,710 per month per aircraft should the arbitrator rule that we be made completely whole for the loss of flying due to the sale of the B-767-200s. Now to be sure, the reason the grievance was filed wasn’t just about dollars and potential lost flying. It was about stopping something we felt ran afoul of our collective bargaining agreement. We wanted the potential sale of the aircraft to stop. Unfortunately, two aircraft left the property during the dispute process (an expedited process at that) and we were faced with the real possibility that even should we win on the merits of the case, the arbitrator would not (as prior precedent would seem to indicate) force the Company to reverse the disposal of an asset (buy the aircraft back). The arbitrator could perhaps stop future sales, but there are no more scheduled sales until mid 2012. This timeline, interestingly enough, is around the same time that the B-787 is due to be delivered. As you might recall, we recognize the B-787 as a replacement for the B-767-200. So, even if the future sales were temporarily halted, they could potentially resume in a matter of weeks from when they are projected to be sold now.
So, the strategic decision before us was fairly straightforward. We had a B-767-200 aircraft sale grievance that if we had won on every point, might have been worth $180,710 per aircraft per month in terms of lost flying and might have stopped the sale of aircraft in 2012 for a short period of time. The same grievance held a potential value of $0 if we lost. In contrast, we were seeking a way to secure tens of millions of dollars in profit sharing for the pilots of Continental Airlines. I believe that given the options before us, the right strategic decision was made. Just so you are aware, this money did not -- I want to repeat that statement-- did not, come out of other employees’ profit sharing amounts. Absent this agreement, this is money that would have gone right back into the Company coffers. I would rather that the money be used to rightfully reward the Continental pilots, whose contributions to the success of our airline should be recognized.
I am pleased to report that the Continental pilots will be included in the 2011 profit sharing plan. I think a prudent person will look at the facts and understand the decision that was made. For those of you who wanted to draw a hard line in the sand on this issue, I respect your opinion and your right to feel the way you do. I simply ask that you respect the opinion of those pilots who are interested in receiving profit sharing for the benefit of themselves and their families. Nonetheless, I want to offer those pilots who indicated that they did not want to participate in profit sharing an alternative. We have a charitable organization set up known as Pilots for Kids; many of you are familiar with this program already. This is a qualified charity under IRS rules and any donation is tax deductible. For any pilot who donates his or her profit sharing check to the Pilots for Kids organization, he or she will get a special mention of honor in the first edition of the Position Report following the award of the profit sharing checks. This is a true win/win scenario, both for the pilots and the kids.
Normally this time each year, I talk about accomplishments of the outgoing year and my thoughts for the upcoming year. I think this year, I will pass on reflections of 2011 and move straight to my predictions for 2012. Above all else, it is vitally important to our Company’s success that we get the JCBA finished. I am hopeful that successfully reaching agreement on profit sharing might prove to be a catalyst for movement by management at the table. Another year of difficult negotiations and the resultant increased angst serves no one’s best interests. Absent a JCBA and the resulting ability to staff one airline properly instead of continuing operations as two separate airlines improperly, all that angst will be exacerbated by another year of staffing shortfalls that will only get worse as the Age 65 rule catches up to us next December. The regulatory changes dealing with Flight Time and Duty Time rules are now defined. There are no other viable excuses to be made for continued procrastination on negotiating the Scheduling-related sections. We should expect -- no, demand -- real progress in the first quarter of 2012 and finality to the JCBA negotiations soon thereafter.
12-30-2011, 04:04 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Le Bus
Posts: 382
12-30-2011, 04:16 PM
#8
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: FO 757/767
Posts: 45
CAL-MEC CHAIRMAN'S UPDATE (12-30-2011)
Everything we achieve, whether contractually or otherwise, we do so through tenacity, hard work and strategic action designed to provide benefit for the pilot group. The effort to include all pilots working under the umbrella of United Continental Holdings, Inc. in the corporate profit sharing plan was no different. Thus, under the direction of your elected representatives, your union carefully weighed the avenues available to secure profit sharing, ultimately electing to capitalize on the outstanding B-767-200 aircraft sales grievance. The discussions with the Company were successful, and in the best interests of the Continental pilots as a group, we settled the B-767-200 aircraft sales grievance in exchange for being included in the 2011 profit sharing plan.
Some may question whether we gave up something or even too much in order to be included in the profit sharing plan for this year.
Everything we achieve, whether contractually or otherwise, we do so through tenacity, hard work and strategic action designed to provide benefit for the pilot group. The effort to include all pilots working under the umbrella of United Continental Holdings, Inc. in the corporate profit sharing plan was no different. Thus, under the direction of your elected representatives, your union carefully weighed the avenues available to secure profit sharing, ultimately electing to capitalize on the outstanding B-767-200 aircraft sales grievance. The discussions with the Company were successful, and in the best interests of the Continental pilots as a group, we settled the B-767-200 aircraft sales grievance in exchange for being included in the 2011 profit sharing plan.
Some may question whether we gave up something or even too much in order to be included in the profit sharing plan for this year.
12-30-2011, 04:49 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: EWR B737FO
Posts: 225
Not a sell-out in my view. I was one of the folks that wanted to keep PS in the lockbox, but after reading the position report, it makes sense. A lucative win on the 767 sale was highly unlikely, given past and current arbitrator rulings so a known is better than an unknown . We won the 70 seat grievance but the reward was nothing and it took almost an entire year to resolve so the arbitraors precedence had been set. I believe the aspects of the terminable parts of TPA and future moves should be the greatest concern, not how CAL MEC decided for its pilots
12-30-2011, 05:05 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Le Bus
Posts: 382
Not a sell-out in my view. I was one of the folks that wanted to keep PS in the lockbox, but after reading the position report, it makes sense. A lucative win on the 767 sale was highly unlikely, given past and current arbitrator rulings so a known is better than an unknown . We won the 70 seat grievance but the reward was nothing and it took almost an entire year to resolve so the arbitraors precedence had been set. I believe the aspects of the terminable parts of TPA and future moves should be the greatest concern, not how CAL MEC decided for its pilots
Oh, and guess what. 70 seaters are out flying as we type.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
