A REAL Unionist view of LOA-25 Furlough rape!
11-15-2012, 01:56 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: B777
Posts: 586
A REAL Unionist view of LOA-25 Furlough rape!
This is one of the most important emails I have ever sent. Please read carefully.
From TA LOA 25 Merger Transition Issues:
4. Pay Longevity Credit for Furloughees
Upon date of signing, any pilot who is, or previously was, furloughed and whose accrued
pay longevity is less than that of pilots hired on or before 5/6/08 shall receive additional
pay longevity credit for time spent on furlough, but only to the extent that such credit
does not provide a pay longevity date prior to 5/7/08.
What's going on here? 5/6/08 is the Date of Hire of the JUNIOR CAL pilot. He, and every other CAL pilot that's ever been furloughed at CAL will get full FURLOUGH LONGEVITY CREDIT (FLC). How many current UAL furloughees get this credit? Answer: ONLY THOSE JUNIOR TO THE JUNIOR CAL PILOT. Think about that. All the UAL furloughees senior to the junior CAL pilot get what? They get ZERO furlough longevity credit EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT UAL CONTRACT HAS A SIDE LETTER THAT PROVIDES FULL FURLOUGH LONGEVITY CREDIT. BY VOTING FOR THIS CONTRACT WE ARE AGREEING TO MORE THAN VOIDING THIS SIDE LETTER.
This is a horrific financial loss to all but a few UAL furloughees. BUT THERE'S MORE TO THIS THAN THE MONEY.
Read the rest of the paragraph:
When an Integrated Seniority List is presented to the Company that satisfies the terms of Section 5 of the Transition and Process Agreement (“TPA”), pilots who are or previously were furloughed shall receive
additional pay longevity credit for all time spent on furlough (read: "furlough longevity repair") provided that they have additional time on furlough which was not credited for pay longevity purposes upon date
of signing, and provided further that the application of such additional credit does not
result in any s-United pilot having a pay longevity date that is earlier than the pay
longevity date of the next most senior s-Continental pilot.
This "furlough longevity repair" will be limited to the results of the Integrated Seniority List (ISL), and MAY NOT APPLY IF STAPLED TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST OR IF PLACED IN A POSITION SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN DATE OF HIRE. THERE'S NO VALUE HERE.
SO WHY DID THIS PARAGRAPH GET WRITTEN?
ANSWER: BECAUSE DENYING S-UAL FULL FURLOUGH LONGEVITY CREDIT WEAKENS THEIR UAL PILOT POSITION ON THE INTEGRATED SENIORITY LIST. AND IF IT WEAKENS OUR FULOUGHEES, WHY WOULD IT NOT DO THE SAME FOR THE REST OF THE S-UAL PILOTS, ESPECIALLY IF IT GOES TO ARBITRATION? METHODOLOGIES THAT WORK AGAINST ONE PART OF THE LIST GIVE AMAZING POWER TO AN ARBITRATOR.
IN SO DOING, WE HAVE CREATED A TWO-TIERED PILOT GROUP: CAL FURLOUGHEES WHO WIN AND GET 100% FLC, UAL FURLOUGHEES GET ZERO EXCEPT FOR A FEW OF THE MOST JUNIOR. HOW MUCH WILL THIS BE WORTH IN DOLLARS? BUT IT DOESN'T END THERE.
THE REAL DIVISION THAT WILL LAST A LIFETIME AND CREATE DECENSION IN THE COCKPIT FOREVER WILL OCCUR WHEN IT BECOMES OBVIOUS THAT S-UAL FURLOUGHEES GOT SCREWED IN THE FINAL ISP BECAUSE THE S-UAL MEC GAVE THE S-CAL MEC THE OPPORTUNITY TO INSIST THAT LONGEVITY WAS PART OF THE EQUATION. HOW WILL THEY EVER RECOVER FROM THAT? SENIORITY IS FOREVER. SO IS BETRAYAL AND HATRED OF YOUR FELLOW PILOTS WHO VOTED FOR AN AGREEMENT THAT DID THIS TO THEM.
WE STOOD SOLID AGAINST THE 1985 B-SCALE. THOSE THAT DIDN'T ARE CALLED SCABS TO THIS DAY.
Gus Arscott, Member, UAL-MEC (1991-93, 1998-2002) .
B-400 Captain Member Negotiating Committee (1993-1998)
ALPA # 55-4444 Chairman, MEC Membership Committee (1985-1991)
IF YOU AGREE, PLEASE FORWARD TO AS MANY S-UAL AND S-CAL PILOTS THAT YOU KNOW.
IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, READ THE LAST LINE ABOVE THE SIGNATURE.
From TA LOA 25 Merger Transition Issues:
4. Pay Longevity Credit for Furloughees
Upon date of signing, any pilot who is, or previously was, furloughed and whose accrued
pay longevity is less than that of pilots hired on or before 5/6/08 shall receive additional
pay longevity credit for time spent on furlough, but only to the extent that such credit
does not provide a pay longevity date prior to 5/7/08.
What's going on here? 5/6/08 is the Date of Hire of the JUNIOR CAL pilot. He, and every other CAL pilot that's ever been furloughed at CAL will get full FURLOUGH LONGEVITY CREDIT (FLC). How many current UAL furloughees get this credit? Answer: ONLY THOSE JUNIOR TO THE JUNIOR CAL PILOT. Think about that. All the UAL furloughees senior to the junior CAL pilot get what? They get ZERO furlough longevity credit EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT UAL CONTRACT HAS A SIDE LETTER THAT PROVIDES FULL FURLOUGH LONGEVITY CREDIT. BY VOTING FOR THIS CONTRACT WE ARE AGREEING TO MORE THAN VOIDING THIS SIDE LETTER.
This is a horrific financial loss to all but a few UAL furloughees. BUT THERE'S MORE TO THIS THAN THE MONEY.
Read the rest of the paragraph:
When an Integrated Seniority List is presented to the Company that satisfies the terms of Section 5 of the Transition and Process Agreement (“TPA”), pilots who are or previously were furloughed shall receive
additional pay longevity credit for all time spent on furlough (read: "furlough longevity repair") provided that they have additional time on furlough which was not credited for pay longevity purposes upon date
of signing, and provided further that the application of such additional credit does not
result in any s-United pilot having a pay longevity date that is earlier than the pay
longevity date of the next most senior s-Continental pilot.
This "furlough longevity repair" will be limited to the results of the Integrated Seniority List (ISL), and MAY NOT APPLY IF STAPLED TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST OR IF PLACED IN A POSITION SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN DATE OF HIRE. THERE'S NO VALUE HERE.
SO WHY DID THIS PARAGRAPH GET WRITTEN?
ANSWER: BECAUSE DENYING S-UAL FULL FURLOUGH LONGEVITY CREDIT WEAKENS THEIR UAL PILOT POSITION ON THE INTEGRATED SENIORITY LIST. AND IF IT WEAKENS OUR FULOUGHEES, WHY WOULD IT NOT DO THE SAME FOR THE REST OF THE S-UAL PILOTS, ESPECIALLY IF IT GOES TO ARBITRATION? METHODOLOGIES THAT WORK AGAINST ONE PART OF THE LIST GIVE AMAZING POWER TO AN ARBITRATOR.
IN SO DOING, WE HAVE CREATED A TWO-TIERED PILOT GROUP: CAL FURLOUGHEES WHO WIN AND GET 100% FLC, UAL FURLOUGHEES GET ZERO EXCEPT FOR A FEW OF THE MOST JUNIOR. HOW MUCH WILL THIS BE WORTH IN DOLLARS? BUT IT DOESN'T END THERE.
THE REAL DIVISION THAT WILL LAST A LIFETIME AND CREATE DECENSION IN THE COCKPIT FOREVER WILL OCCUR WHEN IT BECOMES OBVIOUS THAT S-UAL FURLOUGHEES GOT SCREWED IN THE FINAL ISP BECAUSE THE S-UAL MEC GAVE THE S-CAL MEC THE OPPORTUNITY TO INSIST THAT LONGEVITY WAS PART OF THE EQUATION. HOW WILL THEY EVER RECOVER FROM THAT? SENIORITY IS FOREVER. SO IS BETRAYAL AND HATRED OF YOUR FELLOW PILOTS WHO VOTED FOR AN AGREEMENT THAT DID THIS TO THEM.
WE STOOD SOLID AGAINST THE 1985 B-SCALE. THOSE THAT DIDN'T ARE CALLED SCABS TO THIS DAY.
Gus Arscott, Member, UAL-MEC (1991-93, 1998-2002) .
B-400 Captain Member Negotiating Committee (1993-1998)
ALPA # 55-4444 Chairman, MEC Membership Committee (1985-1991)
IF YOU AGREE, PLEASE FORWARD TO AS MANY S-UAL AND S-CAL PILOTS THAT YOU KNOW.
IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, READ THE LAST LINE ABOVE THE SIGNATURE.
11-15-2012, 02:30 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Le Bus
Posts: 382
I like it. Spells it all out quite nicely.
Its all going to come down to SLI. Hopefully an arbitrator(s) will see through this sham, apply a 99-01 hires' longevity to DOH, (YEAH I SAID IT....DOH), and erase the WINDFALL to those that are clearly junior.
We must be FAIRLY REPRESENTED in these hearings. You listening ALPA?
Its all going to come down to SLI. Hopefully an arbitrator(s) will see through this sham, apply a 99-01 hires' longevity to DOH, (YEAH I SAID IT....DOH), and erase the WINDFALL to those that are clearly junior.
We must be FAIRLY REPRESENTED in these hearings. You listening ALPA?
11-15-2012, 03:39 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: B777
Posts: 586
The squawking by and for the furloughees on the longevity issue has been loud and plentiful. I am quite sure many folks, regardless of the merit of the argument, are getting a little tired of the issue. Frankly, I'm weary of it all too. It is not my goal to go down that road. My goal is to:
1) Keep all the of UAL pilots in mind as to how this particular situation affects us as a whole group.
2) Make sure the point is out there for all to consider in their personal evaluation of the TA.
I think it's terribly important, actually crucial, to remember what ALPA merger policy is and to keep in mind how relative seniority played out in the DAL and USAir SLI, changes in policy notwithstanding.
The plight of the Furloughees has the very real potential to affect EVERY SINGLE PILOT at UAL. This is especially important given that we have ALREADY risked disadvantaging ourselves vis-a-vis pay banding.
This maneuver has set up more than a small probability of the 1999-2001 furloughees to be stapled behind the 2005- 2008 hires at CAL. In essence then, the integration could start with the 2008 hires at CAL slotted with the bottom UAL pilots starting at the AUG 1999 hire date and then move up the list from there.
CAL has approximately 1500 hires from 2005-2008, so this group could potentially be integrated with 1996-1999 hires here. The relative seniority matches if the furloughed group gets stapled. If that wasn't bad enough, consider the demographics of the CAL group. They are, for the most part, 10-20 years younger than the opposing UAL group. For the '96-'99 folks, if there is a staple, a significantly larger portion of that young group will ALWAYS be in front of you until retirement. No need to spell out the obvious implications.
Nobody know how the arbitrators are going to weigh the elements of ALPA merger policy. What we do know is that relative seniority has been a factor in recent decisions. What needs to be evaluated is the plausibility of scenarios. Is this scenario out of the realm of plausibility? That is up to each of us to decide. I personally think it would be foolish to completely discount it.
I think what we can ALL agree on is that it is a wise strategy to minimize the risk going forward. We have increased the risk with the paybanding, why do we want to add even more? Minimizing risk is to have 1100 of the 1999-01 hires valued as close to the last active UAL pilot as possible. We just moved in the opposite direction.
The MOST important aspect is not that the furloughees necessarily receive their full longevity but that the playing field is level and their value is not diminished in the eyes of the arbitrator so that OUR ENTIRE group of brothers and sisters are not disadvantaged. This longevity carve out exclusively for the 99-01's is exactly what that does. Again, with this last minute carve out, EVERY SINGLE UAL Pilot is put at risk to be disadvantaged.
I'm sure the MEC has a plan to return longevity AFTER SLI, but that is TOO LATE to protect the ENTIRE pilot groups' career expectation. Seniority is forever and it truly is when the group your contending with is 10-20 years younger.
I'm not here to foment fear but only ask that we keep our eyes wide open, to understand the risk/reward with this AND all of the other issues in the TA, what it means for us the next 4-6 years as well as, and maybe most importantly, the profession we leave behind.
Thanks for reading.
1) Keep all the of UAL pilots in mind as to how this particular situation affects us as a whole group.
2) Make sure the point is out there for all to consider in their personal evaluation of the TA.
I think it's terribly important, actually crucial, to remember what ALPA merger policy is and to keep in mind how relative seniority played out in the DAL and USAir SLI, changes in policy notwithstanding.
The plight of the Furloughees has the very real potential to affect EVERY SINGLE PILOT at UAL. This is especially important given that we have ALREADY risked disadvantaging ourselves vis-a-vis pay banding.
This maneuver has set up more than a small probability of the 1999-2001 furloughees to be stapled behind the 2005- 2008 hires at CAL. In essence then, the integration could start with the 2008 hires at CAL slotted with the bottom UAL pilots starting at the AUG 1999 hire date and then move up the list from there.
CAL has approximately 1500 hires from 2005-2008, so this group could potentially be integrated with 1996-1999 hires here. The relative seniority matches if the furloughed group gets stapled. If that wasn't bad enough, consider the demographics of the CAL group. They are, for the most part, 10-20 years younger than the opposing UAL group. For the '96-'99 folks, if there is a staple, a significantly larger portion of that young group will ALWAYS be in front of you until retirement. No need to spell out the obvious implications.
Nobody know how the arbitrators are going to weigh the elements of ALPA merger policy. What we do know is that relative seniority has been a factor in recent decisions. What needs to be evaluated is the plausibility of scenarios. Is this scenario out of the realm of plausibility? That is up to each of us to decide. I personally think it would be foolish to completely discount it.
I think what we can ALL agree on is that it is a wise strategy to minimize the risk going forward. We have increased the risk with the paybanding, why do we want to add even more? Minimizing risk is to have 1100 of the 1999-01 hires valued as close to the last active UAL pilot as possible. We just moved in the opposite direction.
The MOST important aspect is not that the furloughees necessarily receive their full longevity but that the playing field is level and their value is not diminished in the eyes of the arbitrator so that OUR ENTIRE group of brothers and sisters are not disadvantaged. This longevity carve out exclusively for the 99-01's is exactly what that does. Again, with this last minute carve out, EVERY SINGLE UAL Pilot is put at risk to be disadvantaged.
I'm sure the MEC has a plan to return longevity AFTER SLI, but that is TOO LATE to protect the ENTIRE pilot groups' career expectation. Seniority is forever and it truly is when the group your contending with is 10-20 years younger.
I'm not here to foment fear but only ask that we keep our eyes wide open, to understand the risk/reward with this AND all of the other issues in the TA, what it means for us the next 4-6 years as well as, and maybe most importantly, the profession we leave behind.
Thanks for reading.
11-15-2012, 04:06 PM
#7
Banned
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 244
I like it. Spells it all out quite nicely.
Its all going to come down to SLI. Hopefully an arbitrator(s) will see through this sham, apply a 99-01 hires' longevity to DOH, (YEAH I SAID IT....DOH), and erase the WINDFALL to those that are clearly junior.
We must be FAIRLY REPRESENTED in these hearings. You listening ALPA?
Its all going to come down to SLI. Hopefully an arbitrator(s) will see through this sham, apply a 99-01 hires' longevity to DOH, (YEAH I SAID IT....DOH), and erase the WINDFALL to those that are clearly junior.
We must be FAIRLY REPRESENTED in these hearings. You listening ALPA?
11-15-2012, 05:51 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: F-16
Posts: 201
11-15-2012, 06:05 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
As a Cal pilot I agree that the TA is not treating furloughs equally, and that is wrong. I don't know where the deal came from or the timeline. All pilots on furlough should be treated equally. The TA should provide full longevity for pay and benefits.
The arbitrator will decide the means of integrating the lists. I don't believe that the wording of a TA with respect to longevity and pay with have any affect on an arbitrators decision.
Vote down this TA, go back ONE time with a compete list of fixes and get a new TA before the end of the year.
This could all have been avoided if there was not a gag order and pilots could have given input to the NC as we went along.
The arbitrator will decide the means of integrating the lists. I don't believe that the wording of a TA with respect to longevity and pay with have any affect on an arbitrators decision.
Vote down this TA, go back ONE time with a compete list of fixes and get a new TA before the end of the year.
This could all have been avoided if there was not a gag order and pilots could have given input to the NC as we went along.
11-15-2012, 06:13 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B777 FO/IRO
Posts: 264
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
