An open letter to CAL and UAL Pilot
12-12-2012, 06:55 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: Retired
Posts: 230
For you CAL pilots the selling and furloughing was done to make sure regulators would approve any merger, whether it be CAL, USAIR or any other airline.
Now I have noticed something on these blogs. It appears a large majority of the very vocal NO voters from CAL are in the 5 - 10 year seniority. If I'm wrong please correct me.
Now I have noticed something on these blogs. It appears a large majority of the very vocal NO voters from CAL are in the 5 - 10 year seniority. If I'm wrong please correct me.
BTW, I'm an '87 hire, and a solid no vote. Most in my hire range feel the same way!
12-12-2012, 07:01 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
Tailwheel
Thanks, but you aren't a "vocal" NO voter. I am referring to those who have thumped, shouted and called names on these blogs.
At sUAL the majority of the very vocal NO voters seems to be a few who also began yelling NO before the TA was even published.
Good on you for responding, thanks again.
But would you say there is a mode (think bell curve) of seniority at sCAL who are voting no? Maybe airplane type, seat, seniority?
Thanks, but you aren't a "vocal" NO voter. I am referring to those who have thumped, shouted and called names on these blogs.
At sUAL the majority of the very vocal NO voters seems to be a few who also began yelling NO before the TA was even published.
Good on you for responding, thanks again.
But would you say there is a mode (think bell curve) of seniority at sCAL who are voting no? Maybe airplane type, seat, seniority?
12-12-2012, 07:03 AM
#14
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: EWR 756 Captain
Posts: 70
12-12-2012, 07:05 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
In response to your right sizing comment, you are correct it is all on Tilton. From the start he was setting this once grand airline up to be merged. Regulators made it clear years before (think the aborted USAir deal) that any combination of UAL with another airline would not work due to the route size and structure of UAL.
It was obvious the target of Tilton was CAL from the early stages because of the minimal amount of route overlap and only small adjust should have been made. But the first attempt proved the regulators and financial institutions didn't like the mix and he, Tilton, responded.
It was obvious the target of Tilton was CAL from the early stages because of the minimal amount of route overlap and only small adjust should have been made. But the first attempt proved the regulators and financial institutions didn't like the mix and he, Tilton, responded.
12-12-2012, 07:39 AM
#16
(retired)
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: Old, retired, healthy, debt-free, liquid
Posts: 422
I have no idea how many in my career situation are voting "yes." However, with less than 1000 days to retirement (relatively large numbers according to projections), the delay risk far, far, outweighs the potential for any further benefit downstream. Having been on the "inside," I'm quite familiar with the process mechanics of the RLA, NMB, and procedural risk. My short-term issues are covered adequately to "industry leading."
On a side note, although LOA 25 isn't likely to affect my ISL seniority in the slightest, I think delaying pay credit for time spent not active (ie, furlough) until after the ISL is a good thing. It helps keep the ISL arguments fundamental: career/contract expectations, DOH, active service longevity among others in the policy manual and in no particular order of preference.
As a follow-on point of opinion, this company merger is one of the "cleanest" transactions on industry record. There was no bankruptcy by either party, no furloughs initiated as a result of the merger, no fragmentation/asset sales and no cash/financing involved; just a straight-up ratioed stock swap. Both companies folded into the resulting "soup" in their entirety.
Taking into account the above and other than a few, dissimilar types of aircraft, the coming ISL procedure might go much more rational and smoother than many are expecting..."windfall" expectations notwithstanding.
On a side note, although LOA 25 isn't likely to affect my ISL seniority in the slightest, I think delaying pay credit for time spent not active (ie, furlough) until after the ISL is a good thing. It helps keep the ISL arguments fundamental: career/contract expectations, DOH, active service longevity among others in the policy manual and in no particular order of preference.
As a follow-on point of opinion, this company merger is one of the "cleanest" transactions on industry record. There was no bankruptcy by either party, no furloughs initiated as a result of the merger, no fragmentation/asset sales and no cash/financing involved; just a straight-up ratioed stock swap. Both companies folded into the resulting "soup" in their entirety.
Taking into account the above and other than a few, dissimilar types of aircraft, the coming ISL procedure might go much more rational and smoother than many are expecting..."windfall" expectations notwithstanding.
Last edited by Old UCAL CA; 12-12-2012 at 08:04 AM.
12-12-2012, 07:45 AM
#17
I'd rather be hunting
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Position: B737 Captain
Posts: 91
I have been at LCAL for 15 years and want to give some history for the vocal YES LUAL voters. Our last contract at LCAL, the O2 contract, was sold to us by our CALALPA union. Our last CAL MEC Negotiating Committee Chairman took a management job with the company after the contract was passed. Our current Chairman has not flown the line for several years. He was a Scheduling Chairman and PBS chairman. I am of the opinion that someone who has spent so much time not flying the line is out of touch with the typical LCAL pilot. I foresee history repeating itself. This TA has some good things in it. However, it is not god enough. The road shows and videos and newsletters are to be informative and not a sales job. We had a sales job on our last contract and don’t need one for this contract. I have read the TA and found it short of what I find acceptable. If anyone thinks that the LCAL No voters have some hinder agenda to screw the LUAL on the ISL then they are delusional. What are the LUAL NO voters’ agenda? We on the LCAL side know where we are and where we were and don’t like where this TA is taking us. Just remember when you get the newsletters that are selling this TA it comes with a warning at the bottom.
“It is important to remember that this communication is for information purposes only and is intended as a general summary of what is in the tentative agreement. It is not a substitute for detailed review of the tentative agreement itself. In the case of any conflict between the tentative agreement and this communication, the terms of the tentative agreement will apply.”
I like a healthy debate. But a debate comes from different opinions. Did you vocal YES voters read the reason some LEC members voted NO. I has been published many times. Enough said. Vote the way you want. But for me it is NO!
“It is important to remember that this communication is for information purposes only and is intended as a general summary of what is in the tentative agreement. It is not a substitute for detailed review of the tentative agreement itself. In the case of any conflict between the tentative agreement and this communication, the terms of the tentative agreement will apply.”
I like a healthy debate. But a debate comes from different opinions. Did you vocal YES voters read the reason some LEC members voted NO. I has been published many times. Enough said. Vote the way you want. But for me it is NO!
12-12-2012, 08:03 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
"No voters have some hinder agenda to screw the LUAL on the ISL then they are delusional. What are the LUAL NO voters’ agenda? We on the LCAL side know where we are and where we were and don’t like where this TA is taking us. Just remember when you get the newsletters that are selling this TA it comes with a warning at the bottom."
While some at sCAL have expressed an interest in gaining as much as possible through the delay of this TA that is NOT the reasoning given to vote affirmative!
The reasoning is this:
sCAL has little to lose in the delay of the TA and associated with that the ISL. This is a fact and has been expressed at the highest levels of the CAL MEC over the past couple of years. Even the ridiculous debate about the TPA is less relevant in the delay.
What is relevant is this TA is a net increase and, in most terms (yes there are a couple of gives) the best contract offer the CAL pilots have since 1983. But many sCAL pilots have also expressed they feel this is the best opportunity since 1983 to get more (and they may be correct). The problem is CAL pilots have a bigger window of opportunity to wait and thus vote no. With additional airplanes coming (not just replacements), historic retirements (not to mention a relatively young lower half seniority list) and improved work rules requiring additional manpower a no vote and a role of the dice just may benefit sCAL pilots more.
Do sUAL pilots have the same window and opportunities to improve NO. This is the issue, not some conspiracy to "take" the captains seats before the United guys get here.
While some at sCAL have expressed an interest in gaining as much as possible through the delay of this TA that is NOT the reasoning given to vote affirmative!
The reasoning is this:
sCAL has little to lose in the delay of the TA and associated with that the ISL. This is a fact and has been expressed at the highest levels of the CAL MEC over the past couple of years. Even the ridiculous debate about the TPA is less relevant in the delay.
What is relevant is this TA is a net increase and, in most terms (yes there are a couple of gives) the best contract offer the CAL pilots have since 1983. But many sCAL pilots have also expressed they feel this is the best opportunity since 1983 to get more (and they may be correct). The problem is CAL pilots have a bigger window of opportunity to wait and thus vote no. With additional airplanes coming (not just replacements), historic retirements (not to mention a relatively young lower half seniority list) and improved work rules requiring additional manpower a no vote and a role of the dice just may benefit sCAL pilots more.
Do sUAL pilots have the same window and opportunities to improve NO. This is the issue, not some conspiracy to "take" the captains seats before the United guys get here.
12-12-2012, 08:09 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
"What are the LUAL NO voters’ agenda?"
BTW the same as many of you:
1. More retro
2. More pay
3. No modifications in reserve work rules.
4. They hate management and would send back any TA offered to them.
5. More, more, more
6. I want to work 10 days a month, have medical benefits paid for 100%, increase my retirement plan, ability to commute at company's expense....
There ya have it.
BTW the same as many of you:
1. More retro
2. More pay
3. No modifications in reserve work rules.
4. They hate management and would send back any TA offered to them.
5. More, more, more
6. I want to work 10 days a month, have medical benefits paid for 100%, increase my retirement plan, ability to commute at company's expense....
There ya have it.
12-12-2012, 08:10 AM
#20
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: 756 Left Side
Posts: 1,629
Tailwheel
Thanks, but you aren't a "vocal" NO voter. I am referring to those who have thumped, shouted and called names on these blogs.
At sUAL the majority of the very vocal NO voters seems to be a few who also began yelling NO before the TA was even published.
Good on you for responding, thanks again.
But would you say there is a mode (think bell curve) of seniority at sCAL who are voting no? Maybe airplane type, seat, seniority?
Thanks, but you aren't a "vocal" NO voter. I am referring to those who have thumped, shouted and called names on these blogs.
At sUAL the majority of the very vocal NO voters seems to be a few who also began yelling NO before the TA was even published.
Good on you for responding, thanks again.
But would you say there is a mode (think bell curve) of seniority at sCAL who are voting no? Maybe airplane type, seat, seniority?
I was a NO Voter before the TA came out.
I had minimum set. Plain and simple (not sure why everyone didn't?!).
When I saw the "Leaked" Payscales and the "Leaked" Retro/Lump Sum.. I was in disbelief.
I spoke with my Rep and went to the local council meeting. I also read the union blastmails. Everything told me to NOT BELIEVE the "rumors".
I told me Rep that if these "rumors" were true- Don't send it out to a Vote~
My Reps lied.
Everything that they said was not true, turned out to be true.
Everything that they told us to believe, turned out to be false.
So, getting back to my NO.
The $400 million is lacking.
The Delta minus a year is lacking.
The Paybanding of the 757-2 to the A320/737NG is unacceptable.
The Paybanding of the A319 to the 737-5/7 is unacceptable.
The Top Payband is unacceptable.
The implementation schedule is unacceptable.
The Scope Section has a huge hole in it (CS100 missing pay).
Too many "the company may...."
And lastly-
LOA25.
I haven't called people names.. even though I have wanted to. The author of that email states what he believes are facts- but they are actually opinions.
I have them, you have them, we all have them.
Facts are what is in the TA, Facts are what is in other pilot groups CBA/PWA's. Facts are what is in the TPA. Facts are what is in our current CBA's.
This thing gets Voted down on Saturday (Hope so!).. Fact is, we still have the TPA, we still have our CBA's, we still have 737's coming over to the UAL Side and 737's & 787's coming to the CAL Side.
This thing gets Voted in on Saturday (Hope not~).. Fact is, we will work under this TA until sometime 2016 at the earliest.
Motch
NO Voter
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
