Response to Kravit
01-26-2012, 02:54 PM
#102
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
This won't be UCH's last try to lose scope. How many CAL pilots who are near retirement won't take $200k, $400k, or $whatever for a yes vote in a contract that gives UCH 90-seaters. It doesn't affect them in any way and it would be the jackpot for the company.
01-26-2012, 05:48 PM
#103
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Guppy Capt.
Posts: 1,887
Yes. Very senior captains. The company's "opener" had just two items (in the midst of a lot of chaff): 90-seaters x 250 and $200k for early retirement.
This won't be UCH's last try to lose scope. How many CAL pilots who are near retirement won't take $200k, $400k, or $whatever for a yes vote in a contract that gives UCH 90-seaters. It doesn't affect them in any way and it would be the jackpot for the company.
This won't be UCH's last try to lose scope. How many CAL pilots who are near retirement won't take $200k, $400k, or $whatever for a yes vote in a contract that gives UCH 90-seaters. It doesn't affect them in any way and it would be the jackpot for the company.
01-28-2012, 06:29 AM
#104
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: 737 CAPT
Posts: 1,905
Yes. Very senior captains. The company's "opener" had just two items (in the midst of a lot of chaff): 90-seaters x 250 and $200k for early retirement.
This won't be UCH's last try to lose scope. How many CAL pilots who are near retirement won't take $200k, $400k, or $whatever for a yes vote in a contract that gives UCH 90-seaters. It doesn't affect them in any way and it would be the jackpot for the company.
This won't be UCH's last try to lose scope. How many CAL pilots who are near retirement won't take $200k, $400k, or $whatever for a yes vote in a contract that gives UCH 90-seaters. It doesn't affect them in any way and it would be the jackpot for the company.
Fact of the matter is we should all worry about the senior guys on both sides taking their golden ticket in an offer like this. Then again, if BOTH MECs allow a contract with those provisions to go out to a vote then we really do have problems.
01-30-2012, 03:36 PM
#105
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B737 CAPT IAH
Posts: 1,130
Well, actually there was an 1113C process. See United Airlines - United Airlines 1113C Motion
Now, whether it ran it's full course I don't recall, but I agree with you that we caved. The then MC, some on the MEC, and large number of line pilots were scared witless about UAL going away and were willing to do most anything to keep the lights on. Hell, I remember hearing that pilots were calling their Reps in tears and telling them to give the company what they wanted.
Still, I think that Ewr saying that we "negotiated" the present scope clause is BS. UAL was going to get what they wanted from Judge Wedoff, and the only way we could stop that was with a very credible threat to burn the place down, but the ratification vote %s indicate the majority was clearly not willing to do it and so that tool was not available. So, yeah it was consensual, in the sense that a rape victim "consenting" to the rapist to avoid being murdered means it was consensual. I would have preferred to fight the rapist with matches and gasoline.
"If you are unwilling to lose everything, eventually, you will." +1
Now, whether it ran it's full course I don't recall, but I agree with you that we caved. The then MC, some on the MEC, and large number of line pilots were scared witless about UAL going away and were willing to do most anything to keep the lights on. Hell, I remember hearing that pilots were calling their Reps in tears and telling them to give the company what they wanted.
Still, I think that Ewr saying that we "negotiated" the present scope clause is BS. UAL was going to get what they wanted from Judge Wedoff, and the only way we could stop that was with a very credible threat to burn the place down, but the ratification vote %s indicate the majority was clearly not willing to do it and so that tool was not available. So, yeah it was consensual, in the sense that a rape victim "consenting" to the rapist to avoid being murdered means it was consensual. I would have preferred to fight the rapist with matches and gasoline.
"If you are unwilling to lose everything, eventually, you will." +1
All points of the post aside, lets lay this out one last time from a legal standpoint. The 1113c motion was filed. The required negotiations transpired. The final "agreement" that was presented for vote was not a moot legal position for either side.
In other words, the company was not going to get their original term sheet if the union had not passed the TA. That fails to recognize the requirements of the code. Rather, you would have gottent the company's "last, best offer" imposed had the TA failed.
You would have gotten exactly the same outcome for a timeframe that was far less. The union and the company would have entered into section 6 the day they exited BK protection.
Gosh, the law is such a funny thing....
Frats,
Lee
01-30-2012, 05:26 PM
#106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
EWR:
You won't see an offer to the "senior" pilots for scope. It just won't pass the MECs.
Please do one thing for me and not point fingers at "senior" pilots. Who does a buy-out help? Those who are "junior" and want to advance in a stagnant pilot group.
Lee:
If you know this "legal" stuff why didn't someone fill us in. Of course maybe they did but were censored? Well at least now I'm armed if another BK happens.
You won't see an offer to the "senior" pilots for scope. It just won't pass the MECs.
Please do one thing for me and not point fingers at "senior" pilots. Who does a buy-out help? Those who are "junior" and want to advance in a stagnant pilot group.
Lee:
If you know this "legal" stuff why didn't someone fill us in. Of course maybe they did but were censored? Well at least now I'm armed if another BK happens.
01-30-2012, 06:50 PM
#107
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
If you're talking about the free market principle that everyone acts in their own self interest, it's a given. Those who can take, will. I cite CAL not to single them out, but because of my personal experience. This is the reason why a "packed house" with "a single FO" concerns me. But who knows? Maybe they've had enough of this management and may exercise some leadership this round.
Last edited by APC225; 01-31-2012 at 07:20 AM.
01-31-2012, 08:30 AM
#108
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: 737 CAPT
Posts: 1,905
That was the point I was trying to make. The MECs know very well the pilot group(s) don't want to see any caving on scope. Hence the reason I said we really are in trouble if THAT gets by the MECs to put out to a pilot group vote. I can't even fathom it happening. UAL pilots have been directly affected by your current scope language to the detriment of 1437 brothers and sisters. The CAL pilots have seen what has happened on your side and have said "no thanks" to going there. I think we are all in agreement on this issue.
02-05-2012, 08:17 PM
#109
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
Snake and Lee;
Yes the 1113c was filed, but the rest of the process never occurred as we "caved" and came to a consensual agreement. Actually coming to a consensual agreement is one of the steps of Section 1113 of the bankruptcy code. If the debtor and creditor (union) cannot come to a consensual agreement, the court gets involved.
But, we didn't come to 1 consensual agreement, we came to 3. The first two were cuts to pay and benefits to save our pensions, and the thirds killed the pensions off.
I looked up a bunch of stuff on 1113 during our bankruptcy, and the one thing that struck me was that I never saw a case where the judge imposed more than one round of paycuts. We imposed THREE on ourselves.
As far as the rapist analogy, I prefer to use a poker game analogy. They bluffed, and we folded. When you fold, you never get to see the other guys cards.
Nothing was ever imposed on us, we just didn't have the courage to stay in the game. IMHO I blame this mostly on ALPA, as all the ALPA reps were spreading doom and gloom and we "had to vote for it" or else.
Yes the 1113c was filed, but the rest of the process never occurred as we "caved" and came to a consensual agreement. Actually coming to a consensual agreement is one of the steps of Section 1113 of the bankruptcy code. If the debtor and creditor (union) cannot come to a consensual agreement, the court gets involved.
But, we didn't come to 1 consensual agreement, we came to 3. The first two were cuts to pay and benefits to save our pensions, and the thirds killed the pensions off.
I looked up a bunch of stuff on 1113 during our bankruptcy, and the one thing that struck me was that I never saw a case where the judge imposed more than one round of paycuts. We imposed THREE on ourselves.
As far as the rapist analogy, I prefer to use a poker game analogy. They bluffed, and we folded. When you fold, you never get to see the other guys cards.
Nothing was ever imposed on us, we just didn't have the courage to stay in the game. IMHO I blame this mostly on ALPA, as all the ALPA reps were spreading doom and gloom and we "had to vote for it" or else.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Rotorhead
Major
16
06-19-2008 06:27 AM
