gettinbumped

When you agree to something, and then in the 11th hour change your mind, pick up your toys and go home, you are a sc$&5)g in my opinion..... or you should be in UAL management.

What you are proposing wouldn't be acceptable to JP! He doesn't WANT full retro because that gives more money to the UAL pilots than the CAL pilots. He wants a "signing bonus". You know, that concessionary thing that management always wants to give us?

Daytripper

I don't know how the $400m figure was accepted, or arrived at for that matter. Did Smizey hand ALPA a check and say, "this is it...all you get"?
It would seem that BOTH JP and JH would have had a rolling figure in mind...which upon receipt of the amount would have said....whoa! NFW!
But, the $400m figure seems to have been accepted as it's been discuss for a couple of months now. In regards to the 225/175....seems it's right down the line of the total SI make up. About 55%UAL and 45%CAL. Whether either side thinks that right or not....the pie being divvied is just too small. Back of the napkin, public school math is telling me slightly less than 30k net for a CAL 73Ca. That comes in at about 16 months of retro out of 48. Sorry...but I won't even crack the cover of the TA if sent. Hate to be myopic....it may be the deal of the century....but I'm not giving them the last for years. Sorry for the rant.

gettinbumped

How can they send it back when the CAL side won't even review it. And they aren't refusing to review it because its not 100% retro. They don't WANT 100% retro. They want a signing bonus so they get as much money as the UAL pilots. With that kind of logic, the UAL MEC should say they aren't going to review the TA until we get our pension back to equal CAL's and we can be here for the next 2 decades!

jsled

Cal MEC's take on pay banding: "my way or the highway...no we won't do arbitration, f ALPA...we'll just fly our concessionary contract forever"
UALMEC's take: "If we can't agree, lets take it to arbitration"

I was privy to the pay banding "discussions", not so much this Retro pay issue, but it sure sounds similar. "I'll take half the money for 45% of the pilots". There is a difference between standing up for your pilots and being a horse's ass. I sure hope JP(os) doesn't take a similar no compromise stand on SLI. If so, you guys will end up like US Air East. Whack proposals get you whack results in REAL binding arbitration.

Sled

LeeMat

APC the policy manual had changes in the language for Lump Sump distribution as of September of this year. Arbitration is spelled out in that language and now it continues to the nex phase IF it is vote in. If you would like me to post the policy manual language let me know.

Captain Bligh

So UAL pilots take no responsibility for the economic disaster that the company was in after contract 2000, 9-11, pursuing a miserable business plan for way too long and letting Tilton drive the ship on to the rocks?

Because when the shoe was on the other foot, during the heyday of the 1990's, ESOP vestment and UAL trading at $300/share, I seem to remember claims that the success of the company was mostly due to UAL pilots being, just a cut above the rest of the industry. The rest of us were after all sort of responsible for the fact that we worked for lesser airlines.

What does pension that you gave up under bankruptcy have to do with the here and now?

Besides, I don't think it was "they" (sCAL JP) that "wanted" a signing bonus. The way it was presented to us was that the company didn't want to open the can of worms where they owed back pay to pilots that had died, retired or quit since the amendable date. I could see CAL ALPA using similar logic to keep more of the money in the pool for active pilots, but I'm pretty sure it's not accurate to say JP asked for bonus vs. retro. Believe me, the they (us flying the line) that have been here want every stinking red cent of retro pay.

cadetdrivr

None whatsoever.

1) The C2000 pilot contract did not BK UAL. The revenue hit (about 33%) that occurred as a result of 9/11 was greater than the entire payroll for all 100k (pre-BK) UAL employees. Every pilot could have worked for FREE and the BK still would have occurred. Expenses are only one side of the ledger. Ironically, UAL's enormous international domination (in comparison with other U.S. airlines, and particularly CAL in 2001) with 44 747-400's, 60 777's, and 35 767-300ER's was an Achilles Heel as international travelers booked away from U.S. carriers.

2) All the other factors were out of the pilot's control so why should pilots bear any responsibility? FWIW, the ship was on the rocks prior to Tilton's arrival and he was brought in for the BK. (I'm not defending anything he did in BK.)

APC225

Thanks, and yes, if you could post an appropriate section of the manual.

EWR73FO

Not only giving them the last four years at pennies on the dollar but giving them the thought that at the end of this contract they will have free reign to delay for another 4-6 years.

syd111

Don't know who would get the most nor do I care as long as it is full for everyone then it would be fine.