Ottolillienthal

The agreement in principle is largely conceptual. Most of it is in bullet point form (like CBA/POS 02) was. That's what we voted on, it was an AIP.

Those bullet points will need to be codified into languge.

Then, it will be scrubbed for problems by company and union. Then it will be presented to MEC. Probably about 2 to 3 weeks.

SlickMachine

I read that UAL update and I see a sales job taking place. It is written as if the yes votes already have it.

757Driver

Call the LAX or IAH Reps, they seem pretty responsive.

horrido27

To be honest, I'm a Council 170 guy and don't feel I should call other councils Reps to discuss this issue.
That being said, a few people I know and trust have spoken to the LAX Rep in question and they want me to talk to him. I'm waiting for a return call from him.

Our Union(s) told us NOT to believe the "rumors" and to give the process some time. I was ok with that.
But once a few posts came out that had names to them, and they all pointed to LAX for their source.. the cat got out of the bag.

Yes, I am concerned about what I am hearing. But I also believe that a JCBA is about the WHOLE Document, not just bits and pieces.
I am also concerned that, we (CAL Pilots) have a resolution on the books about the way the process should work. Now there are rumblings that it won't work that way. That bothers me to no end!

Was has me confused from the Union(s) standpoint is this-

At Delta, they announced at TA and within days, it was out to the pilot groups. For some reason, they never announced an AIP?!

We announce an AIP, and then state it will be some time before a TA is done. Huh?
Shouldn't all the other sections that have been agreed to already have TA Language? Shouldn't the last few sections be done within days? How can we have a TA when we have Open Sections?

As someone posted on this and another forum.. are we purposely being delayed now by our own union? We (with the backing of ALPA National) have asked for Release a few times now. No response from the NMB.
{I believe it was a MAJOR Fault of our Union in their timeline. We should have asked for release back in January the second the TPA expired.. instead of extending it!}

It is what it is.. but it behooves us to start planning for the next phase of the mess.

Motch

horrido27

Maybe you're right.. but then again, this is an open Forum for discussions. Any type of discussions.

None of this would have taken a life of it's own if someone (who posted under their own name, on one of the other Forums) didn't post "facts" about the AIP that they got from the LAX FO Rep.

Then, an ex Rep (IAH) chimed in to confirm the above, and also stated "facts" based on talking to other sources.

These "facts" all revolve around a few key points.
Delta's Scope.
Think we all have to be honest and accept the fact that DALALPA with ALPA Nationals approval, just set the new bar for Scope. Like it or not.

Delta's Pay.
May or may not be acceptable.. to many variables without knowing more details.

Retro.
$400 million.
I won't touch that subject, but I hope it's wrong.

And lastly-
That we (CAL Pilots) may not see the TA for 14 days prior to an MEC Vote, per our Resolution 1010-93R
To me.. that is a big deal. And therefore, I just want to make sure I'm ready with a plan of action in case this come true.

What is amazing is that many CAL Pilots don't even know about this resolution.. or seem to care. And (to me).. that's sad.

Motch

Ottolillienthal

1. Delta was writing language as it when along. Their turn sheets were done in such a wasy that when a section was completed, it was codified and put to bed.

2. This is an entire contractural re-write. Delta's was not. The process is somewhat convoluted at UAL/CAL. I am fairly certain that the sections that were put to bed are just that.....done. they won't comment on them, or show them to us because those are part of a larger document and the entire document is incomplete without the entire package out for review.

3. Delta wasn't out to screw it's pilots over. Totally different negotiating style. Their appeared to be a larger degree of trust, and straightforward talk. Delta wanted an agreement for other purposes, and those purposes had to do with advancing its business and marketing plan.

4. Passing a resolution on the process is fine, but you need to have a 75% or better, by roll call vote on changing the policy manual regarding TA handling, approval, etc at the MEC level, and as long as that doesn't contradict National Policy, Admin Manual, and CBL, you can do it.

5. Keep in mind we are working against Muir (R/I), Martin (work rules), Stivala (pay), and Zullo (scope). Their history speaks for itself. We need lots of eyes on this work product. But, then again, they did such a lousy job for IACP and ALPA then maybe they will do a horrible job for their new bosses too.

Ottolillienthal

Did the MEC publish any facts about the resolution to the pilots?

Was it summarized in LC communications?

If the MEC had intended for this resolution to "set policy" on the matter, then it would have put it up on the front page of the website for review, or been incldued in the chairman's weekly brief. Am I wrong on that????

CALFO

Motch,

The AIP, followed weeks later by an TA is a UAL MEC strategy. If you recall, CAL ALPA had already TA'd several sections of C'08 when the merger was announced. Those TA's were open to the pilot group and available on the CALALPA website (in fact, they still are!).

I much prefer the CAL method, as it give the pilots and reps plenty of time to review the contract before voting. In fact, the 14 days becomes a moot point when the TA's are released as they are agreed to. I don't understand the benefits of the complete AIP, followed by a TA but it's a little late to go back.

Coto Pilot

I don't believe it is a strategy at all, but has been dictated by the NMB.

Regularguy

I guess you all have nothing better to do than sweat over things we have no control over.

Here's what still has to happen:

They have to agree on actual contract language which means what they agreed upon across the table.

They have to close the R&I section (potentially difficult) and the others items which seem to be minor.

Finally no matter what we get to see many of you will hate it, even if it had zero RJ flying and out-sourcing. And many of you a year after the TA is passed will be saying, "I told you so, you should have listened to me..."

Of course it doesn't matter how good or bad the contract is there will come a time when no body will admit voting yes for it.

As far as a "sales job" goes I guarantee you not one contract in my 34+ years didn't include a "sales job" via a road show.