What say you EWR, CLE, LAX and GUAM?
05-12-2012, 01:39 PM
#21
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: 756 Left Side
Posts: 1,629
Let me put it a better way, that maybe you'll understand.
Currently, we get 12.75% put into our B-Fund. In C08 proposal, there were a few different retirement options that we were trying to get. One was a B-Fund contribution of 19%. If the company were to come back and say.. we'll give you 16%. That would be an almost a 26% increase for us.. but nothing for you.
However, if they turned around and raised the UAL FO Pay by 26%.. would that be ok for you?
Cause it wouldn't be a 26% raise for us.. it would be an 18% raise! And then when you figure in the B-Fund, your side is also getting a slightly higher percentage of increase.
That is my point.. there are some things that, while being a better improvement for you, would mean less for us. And vice a versa.
Obviously, as I stated earlier- you guys have lost more than us.. but our guys have lost certain things that were important to them also.
And we haven't even touched the Elephant in the room~ What will we do when they say.. no retro but we'll call it a "signing bonus"?
Does everyone get the same, (obviously, I would expect Captains to get more than FO's..) or do we give one group a higher percentage?
Does a "signing bonus" include all pilots? or just those on an active list? What about the guys who have bypassed a class date on the CAL Side? What about the guys who have left and don't plan on coming back to UAL?
What is the precedent for "signing bonuses" for guys on the street? This will also probably become a nightmare.
Also, who get's to vote on the CBA? All Active Pilots? That causes an interesting issue with regards to those UAL Pilots who are on Furlough with UAL yet are now employeed on the CAL Side.
My point through this whole discussion was this- Depending on which side you're on (as a line pilot), you see things one way. But the JNC and the MEC's were suppose to work together so it didn't come down to the Line Pilots arguing.
There was a huge rift caused by the MEC's over 3 weeks ago.. but it seems that now, we have a letter form Jay P to LM and LM/ALPA National has formally put the NMB on notice for a potential release.
Hopefully both of our sides are working together and the give & take is fair.. so we can have a unified front against the company.
Motch
PS> I live local, have no desire to do a red-eye turn followed by an International trip. That being said, 80%(ish) of EWR are commuters.. and some of them like that kinda stuff. But it should NOT be forced onto anyone's schedule.
05-12-2012, 02:17 PM
#22
SLI best wishes!
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: B767 Capt
Posts: 399
No.. I'm NOT concerned about doing those type of flights. Pretty scary that some of you are suppose to be Professional Pilots, yet ya can't read and understand basic English.
Let me put it a better way, that maybe you'll understand.
Currently, we get 12.75% put into our B-Fund. In C08 proposal, there were a few different retirement options that we were trying to get. One was a B-Fund contribution of 19%. If the company were to come back and say.. we'll give you 16%. That would be an almost a 26% increase for us.. but nothing for you.
However, if they turned around and raised the UAL FO Pay by 26%.. would that be ok for you?
Cause it wouldn't be a 26% raise for us.. it would be an 18% raise! And then when you figure in the B-Fund, your side is also getting a slightly higher percentage of increase.
That is my point.. there are some things that, while being a better improvement for you, would mean less for us. And vice a versa.
Obviously, as I stated earlier- you guys have lost more than us.. but our guys have lost certain things that were important to them also.
And we haven't even touched the Elephant in the room~ What will we do when they say.. no retro but we'll call it a "signing bonus"?
Does everyone get the same, (obviously, I would expect Captains to get more than FO's..) or do we give one group a higher percentage?
Does a "signing bonus" include all pilots? or just those on an active list? What about the guys who have bypassed a class date on the CAL Side? What about the guys who have left and don't plan on coming back to UAL?
What is the precedent for "signing bonuses" for guys on the street? This will also probably become a nightmare.
Also, who get's to vote on the CBA? All Active Pilots? That causes an interesting issue with regards to those UAL Pilots who are on Furlough with UAL yet are now employeed on the CAL Side.
My point through this whole discussion was this- Depending on which side you're on (as a line pilot), you see things one way. But the JNC and the MEC's were suppose to work together so it didn't come down to the Line Pilots arguing.
There was a huge rift caused by the MEC's over 3 weeks ago.. but it seems that now, we have a letter form Jay P to LM and LM/ALPA National has formally put the NMB on notice for a potential release.
Hopefully both of our sides are working together and the give & take is fair.. so we can have a unified front against the company.
Motch
PS> I live local, have no desire to do a red-eye turn followed by an International trip. That being said, 80%(ish) of EWR are commuters.. and some of them like that kinda stuff. But it should NOT be forced onto anyone's schedule.
Let me put it a better way, that maybe you'll understand.
Currently, we get 12.75% put into our B-Fund. In C08 proposal, there were a few different retirement options that we were trying to get. One was a B-Fund contribution of 19%. If the company were to come back and say.. we'll give you 16%. That would be an almost a 26% increase for us.. but nothing for you.
However, if they turned around and raised the UAL FO Pay by 26%.. would that be ok for you?
Cause it wouldn't be a 26% raise for us.. it would be an 18% raise! And then when you figure in the B-Fund, your side is also getting a slightly higher percentage of increase.
That is my point.. there are some things that, while being a better improvement for you, would mean less for us. And vice a versa.
Obviously, as I stated earlier- you guys have lost more than us.. but our guys have lost certain things that were important to them also.
And we haven't even touched the Elephant in the room~ What will we do when they say.. no retro but we'll call it a "signing bonus"?
Does everyone get the same, (obviously, I would expect Captains to get more than FO's..) or do we give one group a higher percentage?
Does a "signing bonus" include all pilots? or just those on an active list? What about the guys who have bypassed a class date on the CAL Side? What about the guys who have left and don't plan on coming back to UAL?
What is the precedent for "signing bonuses" for guys on the street? This will also probably become a nightmare.
Also, who get's to vote on the CBA? All Active Pilots? That causes an interesting issue with regards to those UAL Pilots who are on Furlough with UAL yet are now employeed on the CAL Side.
My point through this whole discussion was this- Depending on which side you're on (as a line pilot), you see things one way. But the JNC and the MEC's were suppose to work together so it didn't come down to the Line Pilots arguing.
There was a huge rift caused by the MEC's over 3 weeks ago.. but it seems that now, we have a letter form Jay P to LM and LM/ALPA National has formally put the NMB on notice for a potential release.
Hopefully both of our sides are working together and the give & take is fair.. so we can have a unified front against the company.
Motch
PS> I live local, have no desire to do a red-eye turn followed by an International trip. That being said, 80%(ish) of EWR are commuters.. and some of them like that kinda stuff. But it should NOT be forced onto anyone's schedule.
When I say "Bad deal" it's like comparing Apples to Oranges. There are some things that we allow that you don't (not going into the BF crew rest seat! LOL)
I know we allow guys to do red-eyes and turn around and do a night international flight. You guys don't allow that but our guys who commute like it.
Me, I avoid it but think it should be something allowed in the Contract IF the pilot waives it. But min 12 hours off in domicile is a must!
I know we allow guys to do red-eyes and turn around and do a night international flight. You guys don't allow that but our guys who commute like it.
Me, I avoid it but think it should be something allowed in the Contract IF the pilot waives it. But min 12 hours off in domicile is a must!
05-12-2012, 03:03 PM
#23
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: 756 Left Side
Posts: 1,629
Again, I don't want to do it but there are some who do...
As far as the FDT rules.. they come into play in 2013. Should we wait till then for a JCBA? And do you mean you'll be ok with giving up 3 man crews for 8 hour flights? Seems to me, they might get away with having two pilots working the 'W' pairings we're now doing! Wanna bet that this company tries to make International Pairings that are less than 9 hours, and leave at times that allow for 2 man 9 hour ops~
I guess we'll know something in about 5 weeks~
maybe we should all refrain from posting till then?
Motch
As far as the FDT rules.. they come into play in 2013. Should we wait till then for a JCBA? And do you mean you'll be ok with giving up 3 man crews for 8 hour flights? Seems to me, they might get away with having two pilots working the 'W' pairings we're now doing! Wanna bet that this company tries to make International Pairings that are less than 9 hours, and leave at times that allow for 2 man 9 hour ops~
I guess we'll know something in about 5 weeks~
maybe we should all refrain from posting till then?
Motch
05-12-2012, 03:55 PM
#24
SLI best wishes!
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: B767 Capt
Posts: 399
Again, I don't want to do it but there are some who do...
As far as the FDT rules.. they come into play in 2013. Should we wait till then for a JCBA? And do you mean you'll be ok with giving up 3 man crews for 8 hour flights? Seems to me, they might get away with having two pilots working the 'W' pairings we're now doing! Wanna bet that this company tries to make International Pairings that are less than 9 hours, and leave at times that allow for 2 man 9 hour ops~
I guess we'll know something in about 5 weeks~
maybe we should all refrain from posting till then?
Motch
As far as the FDT rules.. they come into play in 2013. Should we wait till then for a JCBA? And do you mean you'll be ok with giving up 3 man crews for 8 hour flights? Seems to me, they might get away with having two pilots working the 'W' pairings we're now doing! Wanna bet that this company tries to make International Pairings that are less than 9 hours, and leave at times that allow for 2 man 9 hour ops~
I guess we'll know something in about 5 weeks~
maybe we should all refrain from posting till then?
Motch
I am not sure what the implantation schedule of certain provisions of the new JCBA will look like, but in past contracts, certain items take effect at different times...
I am hoping that the JCBA will be more restrictive than the FARs.....I hope that answers your question about what I would like to see in the future...
05-12-2012, 05:42 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Posts: 467
The policy manual was amended to include langauge sending things like this, including LOA's that substantially affect pay, benefits, and work rules to prevent someone from within the MEC or within the ALPA structure who may have an agenda from blindsiding the MEC with a rush job agreement that was not fully vetted or understood.
Case in point: PBS implementation LOA. Section 25 of the CAL CBA was left blank when voted upon by the pilots. It read "to be inserted at a later date." HOW is this POSSIBLE under ALPA is beyond me?
At any rate, by a narrow margin POS 02 passed with an entre section missing. Oddly enough, GUM, and CLE have never really been affected by PBS, roughly 400 pilots in total, represented by 4 reps held significant weight on the matter. Then, having an instructor rep, who has no dog in this fight since they don't use PBS or understand it, shifted the vote to a minimum of 5-4 in favor of full PBS implementation. No one understood it, especially the pilots. It passed, as I recall 7-2 with EWR the only opposing votes. Only 3 years later, did the CAL pilots come to understand what the terms "overall solution constraints", and "seniority within feasibility" meant.
Then look at the Furlough mitigation LOA, which had some unintended consequences. Also a rush job, but this one by management.
Look at Furlough Mitigaiton 2 and 2A, which were sent back to the company stamped DoA due to the rush job. I beleive the company wanted the MEC's vote in about 30 minutes with NO send out to the pilots in both cases.
The language in the PM was not done with regard to anything UAL related.
05-12-2012, 06:18 PM
#27
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: 756 Left Side
Posts: 1,629
That is incorrect.
The policy manual was amended to include langauge sending things like this, including LOA's that substantially affect pay, benefits, and work rules to prevent someone from within the MEC or within the ALPA structure who may have an agenda from blindsiding the MEC with a rush job agreement that was not fully vetted or understood.
Case in point: PBS implementation LOA. Section 25 of the CAL CBA was left blank when voted upon by the pilots. It read "to be inserted at a later date." HOW is this POSSIBLE under ALPA is beyond me?
At any rate, by a narrow margin POS 02 passed with an entre section missing. Oddly enough, GUM, and CLE have never really been affected by PBS, roughly 400 pilots in total, represented by 4 reps held significant weight on the matter. Then, having an instructor rep, who has no dog in this fight since they don't use PBS or understand it, shifted the vote to a minimum of 5-4 in favor of full PBS implementation. No one understood it, especially the pilots. It passed, as I recall 7-2 with EWR the only opposing votes. Only 3 years later, did the CAL pilots come to understand what the terms "overall solution constraints", and "seniority within feasibility" meant.
Then look at the Furlough mitigation LOA, which had some unintended consequences. Also a rush job, but this one by management.
Look at Furlough Mitigaiton 2 and 2A, which were sent back to the company stamped DoA due to the rush job. I beleive the company wanted the MEC's vote in about 30 minutes with NO send out to the pilots in both cases.
The language in the PM was not done with regard to anything UAL related.
The policy manual was amended to include langauge sending things like this, including LOA's that substantially affect pay, benefits, and work rules to prevent someone from within the MEC or within the ALPA structure who may have an agenda from blindsiding the MEC with a rush job agreement that was not fully vetted or understood.
Case in point: PBS implementation LOA. Section 25 of the CAL CBA was left blank when voted upon by the pilots. It read "to be inserted at a later date." HOW is this POSSIBLE under ALPA is beyond me?
At any rate, by a narrow margin POS 02 passed with an entre section missing. Oddly enough, GUM, and CLE have never really been affected by PBS, roughly 400 pilots in total, represented by 4 reps held significant weight on the matter. Then, having an instructor rep, who has no dog in this fight since they don't use PBS or understand it, shifted the vote to a minimum of 5-4 in favor of full PBS implementation. No one understood it, especially the pilots. It passed, as I recall 7-2 with EWR the only opposing votes. Only 3 years later, did the CAL pilots come to understand what the terms "overall solution constraints", and "seniority within feasibility" meant.
Then look at the Furlough mitigation LOA, which had some unintended consequences. Also a rush job, but this one by management.
Look at Furlough Mitigaiton 2 and 2A, which were sent back to the company stamped DoA due to the rush job. I beleive the company wanted the MEC's vote in about 30 minutes with NO send out to the pilots in both cases.
The language in the PM was not done with regard to anything UAL related.
Air Line Pilots Association
CAL MEC Meeting
October 06 - 14, 2010
Westin Diplomat Resort & Spa – Hollywood, FL
1010-93R
SOURCE LEC 170
Moved: FO John Person
Second: CA Jayson Baron
Action:Passes 9/0/0
SUBJECT
Final Language of the JCBA to the Pilots of Continental Airlines
BACKGROUND
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
WHEREAS Continental pilots value the ability to give input to their elected reps, and
WHEREAS this input is a cornerstone to the foundation of the Air Line Pilots Association,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that before the MEC votes to accept or reject the JCBA, the MEC will produce the final language of the JCBA to the pilots of Continental Airlines,
THEREFORE BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED, that the pilots will have the final language of the JCBA to allow a minimum of 14 calendar days for membership review and comment.
You were saying?!
Motch
05-12-2012, 06:27 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: EWR B737FO
Posts: 225
That is incorrect.
The policy manual was amended to include langauge sending things like this, including LOA's that substantially affect pay, benefits, and work rules to prevent someone from within the MEC or within the ALPA structure who may have an agenda from blindsiding the MEC with a rush job agreement that was not fully vetted or understood.
Case in point: PBS implementation LOA. Section 25 of the CAL CBA was left blank when voted upon by the pilots. It read "to be inserted at a later date." HOW is this POSSIBLE under ALPA is beyond me?
At any rate, by a narrow margin POS 02 passed with an entre section missing. Oddly enough, GUM, and CLE have never really been affected by PBS, roughly 400 pilots in total, represented by 4 reps held significant weight on the matter. Then, having an instructor rep, who has no dog in this fight since they don't use PBS or understand it, shifted the vote to a minimum of 5-4 in favor of full PBS implementation. No one understood it, especially the pilots. It passed, as I recall 7-2 with EWR the only opposing votes. Only 3 years later, did the CAL pilots come to understand what the terms "overall solution constraints", and "seniority within feasibility" meant.
Then look at the Furlough mitigation LOA, which had some unintended consequences. Also a rush job, but this one by management.e
Look at Furlough Mitigaiton 2 and 2A, which were sent back to the company stamped DoA due to the rush job. I beleive the company wanted the MEC's vote in about 30 minutes with NO send out to the pilots in both cases.
The language in the PM was not done with regard to anything UAL related.
The policy manual was amended to include langauge sending things like this, including LOA's that substantially affect pay, benefits, and work rules to prevent someone from within the MEC or within the ALPA structure who may have an agenda from blindsiding the MEC with a rush job agreement that was not fully vetted or understood.
Case in point: PBS implementation LOA. Section 25 of the CAL CBA was left blank when voted upon by the pilots. It read "to be inserted at a later date." HOW is this POSSIBLE under ALPA is beyond me?
At any rate, by a narrow margin POS 02 passed with an entre section missing. Oddly enough, GUM, and CLE have never really been affected by PBS, roughly 400 pilots in total, represented by 4 reps held significant weight on the matter. Then, having an instructor rep, who has no dog in this fight since they don't use PBS or understand it, shifted the vote to a minimum of 5-4 in favor of full PBS implementation. No one understood it, especially the pilots. It passed, as I recall 7-2 with EWR the only opposing votes. Only 3 years later, did the CAL pilots come to understand what the terms "overall solution constraints", and "seniority within feasibility" meant.
Then look at the Furlough mitigation LOA, which had some unintended consequences. Also a rush job, but this one by management.e
Look at Furlough Mitigaiton 2 and 2A, which were sent back to the company stamped DoA due to the rush job. I beleive the company wanted the MEC's vote in about 30 minutes with NO send out to the pilots in both cases.
The language in the PM was not done with regard to anything UAL related.
I was there when the motion was made in EWR and the primary rationale was pure numbers...in that L-UA has the greater number of voting members. Yes, the chance of either pilot group voting totally along party lines, was remote but folks voiced as a concern. UA SCOPE clause and potential impact on us in a joint contract, is a huge threat. It was done to ensure the LECs received CAL pilot feedback BEFORE deciding on whether to agree to a joint vote. It was also to hold rep feet to the fire on our non- negotiables, such as SCOPE. Do agree that distrust was a factor ( as you mentioned) but this specific issue was a security net before a joint vote.... that we cannot control the outcome ( numbers wise)
05-12-2012, 07:01 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
No.. I'm NOT concerned about doing those type of flights. Pretty scary that some of you are suppose to be Professional Pilots, yet ya can't read and understand basic English.
Let me put it a better way, that maybe you'll understand.
Currently, we get 12.75% put into our B-Fund. In C08 proposal, there were a few different retirement options that we were trying to get. One was a B-Fund contribution of 19%. If the company were to come back and say.. we'll give you 16%. That would be an almost a 26% increase for us.. but nothing for you.
However, if they turned around and raised the UAL FO Pay by 26%.. would that be ok for you?
Cause it wouldn't be a 26% raise for us.. it would be an 18% raise! And then when you figure in the B-Fund, your side is also getting a slightly higher percentage of increase.
That is my point.. there are some things that, while being a better improvement for you, would mean less for us. And vice a versa.
Obviously, as I stated earlier- you guys have lost more than us.. but our guys have lost certain things that were important to them also.
Let me put it a better way, that maybe you'll understand.
Currently, we get 12.75% put into our B-Fund. In C08 proposal, there were a few different retirement options that we were trying to get. One was a B-Fund contribution of 19%. If the company were to come back and say.. we'll give you 16%. That would be an almost a 26% increase for us.. but nothing for you.
However, if they turned around and raised the UAL FO Pay by 26%.. would that be ok for you?
Cause it wouldn't be a 26% raise for us.. it would be an 18% raise! And then when you figure in the B-Fund, your side is also getting a slightly higher percentage of increase.
That is my point.. there are some things that, while being a better improvement for you, would mean less for us. And vice a versa.
Obviously, as I stated earlier- you guys have lost more than us.. but our guys have lost certain things that were important to them also.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
