Dave Fitzgerald

I like many do not blame the CO pilots for the l-UAL situation. However, I don't think the captian bids will go unfilled either. The fact is, management has chosen this course.

Who to blame doesn't matter. The fact that management has chosen this battle is why the UAL guys resent the continuing junior captain bids on the CO side. This is our future, and people will be voting accordingly. I certainly don't trust management to all of a sudden to become magnamious and treat both groups with respect and equality. That is why many UAL voters will be yes, not the crappy contract.

gettinbumped

Thank you for being a gentleman in this post.

Personally, I think this agreement is worthy of a "Yes" vote from LCAL AND LUAL pilots. The people (not just ALPA) that cost these things for a living say that it's better than DAL's starting in 2014. I also think that there are some truly significant work rule improvements that the LCAL pilots will experience that are superior to what DAL has. However, I can solidly appreciate that my opinion isn't shared by all. Provided that one is working with ACCURATE information, and not the arguments that have been firmly shot down by the SME's from some of the random "30 Reasons to vote no" missives, I fully and totally respect each pilots vote, regardless of direction.

I don't at all think that LCAL pilots are voting no en masse to "stick it to the LUAL pilots". Judging by my own journey through understanding this TA, I'm guessing that there is much misunderstanding of what's actually in there, especially when it comes to work rules. As the LUAL work rules are the vast majority of what is in the TA, the LCAL pilots won't be nearly as familiar with them as the LUAL pilots are. The improvements in Add Pay, 5 Hours/Day and Line by Line, and the extra money LCAL pilots get in their B-Fund don't get NEARLY as much attention as the twice-per-year inverse reassignment, but I think they are MUCH more important. Mostly, however, I think LCAL pilots simply don't have as much at risk as the LUAL pilots do, hence an easier time voting no. You are looking at some growth either way, hiring, industry leading upgrade times, ok pay, and a contract that you seem content to live with if a renegotiated contract takes another 6 months, 1 year, 2 years.

What concerns me is that I think the vast majority of the LCAL pilots do not agree with the consensus of the costing experts from all parties, and don't see this as an industry leading contract. They consider it substandard. That's ok, but that's usually where I see the argument stop. A "No" vote is registered, and then.... what? I'm assuming the goal of turning down the TA is to get a better agreement. I hear all the theories sported by average line pilots with absolutely no concrete information about what's happening behind the scenes that caused the vast majority of our reps to support this TA about how Jeff NEEDS this deal, how you "always turn down the first deal", and how the company can afford to give us more. What I don't hear is the plan for extracting that money. What I don't see is Jeff negotiating any differently than he has been for the past 3 years. What I don't feel is that the NMB or the parties that actually have the power to affect our contract will feel that we are getting a raw enough deal that they should force the company to open it's checkbook in any substantial way.

It wouldn't surprise me if the NMB were willing to "move the deck chairs around the Titanic" within 6 months. You want full retro? No problem. Take back the Guam over-ride, keep the LCAL pilots B-Fund at 12+%, and allow the company to exclude the Q from the 76 seat cap and you can get full retro (which goes up $40-$50 million per month). Trouble is, that every pilot has a different set of things they are voting no on. In the above scenario, you capture the "no because of retro" vote. But you then open up a whole DIFFERENT set of no voters based on what was given up to GET that full retro.

The only way it works, is if you assume the NMB will agree with our position that the TA SHE NEGOTIATED and considers industry leading is substandard, and forces the company to once again open their checkbook in a substantial way. I have news for all of us. Tigers don't change their stripes, and Jeff ain't doing it unless he HAS to.

It's a business decision. Accept the TA, and you have a known quantity, and in 2014 by all parties costing analysis, an industry leading contract. Turn it down, and the future is uncertain. Any new deal has to be worth MORE than $40-$50 million a month NET to the pilots to break even, substantially more to make it worthwhile. But you also induce outside risk factors such as the fiscal cliff, economic collapse in Europe, a nuclear Iran, North Korea firing off more rockets, etc. etc. Any one of those things happen, and the chances of the company being forced to increase their offer goes to nill. And in hindsight, we will have made a BAD business decision. Perhaps the fiscal cliff will be averted, and the economy will explode, giving us ample leverage to demand a significantly better deal. I personally don't see it happening.

Man, I need a nap after writing that.

gettinbumped

Last thought.... I think we all owe a beer to DAL's management. If they hadn't been so brilliantly tricky to go out and negotiate a deal quickly and early, we wouldn't have anything anywhere NEAR this good of an agreement to argue about. They took advantage of Jeff's delay tactics, and it cost him HUGE. Which still makes me smile.

LAX Pilot

There isn't a plan because most of the no voters really believe a better overall contract is going to happen.

We are all smart enough to know that it would take a year or more to get a new agreement and ALL THE SAME ARGUMENTS would come up again about the new one. Guys would come on here and say "They fixed ___ but not enough for me to vote YES".

Its the same company, same negotiations, same NMB, same MEC's, same pilot groups. Nothing significant is going to change.

The interesting thing is the hypocrisy of the NO voters. Their posts are laden with talk of "Its the same management, they aren't going to do anything different" when it suits them to say it, but when they try to convince pilots to vote NO, magically "Management will rush back to the table and have an open mind and want to make all these changes, etc"

I predict 62.1% Yes vote down from 62.3% earlier predicted with 92% of pilots voting.

Slammer

GB...you are a closet DOH guy. Own it! How can you state these Captains could not hold these bids based upon a combined relative seniority. The only way would be for L-UA pilots (jr seniority) to receive a windfall /leapfrog award at the expense of another group( our junior pilots).

SpecialTracking

I keep on looking, but I just can't find relative seniority in alpa merger policy. Maybe the three arbitrators have a different set of glasses than I.

Slammer

ST...My point is more focused on no windfall for or against any group...so what does that leave you....pretty much where you started.

NavyCal

Honest question: does ALPA's merger policy still say the arbitrator must - at a minimum - consider longevity, career expectations, and category/status?

gettinbumped

I'm absolutely NOT a DOH guy, so you've just proved to me that your credibility is ZERO. DOH not a fair methodology of merging seniority lists, though I would benefit greatly in this case if it were. Do you know how close we came to merging with USAirways? You think I would have wanted DOH then??

I can EASILY state that these Captains wouldn't have held the bid in a combined SLI. Anyone who was awarded Captain under the latest superbid that couldn't hold it at the merger date will not be able to hold it after the seniority list is combined. The merger date IS the snapshot date. Oh, and it's not going to go straight relative seniority either. That would be a windfall for LCAL pilots. Deal with it.

gettinbumped

Yes. Directly from Airline Pilot Mag..

The new policy states
that the factors that must be considered in constructing a
fair and equitable integrated seniority list, in no particular
order and with no particular weight, now include but are
not limited to career expectations, longevity, and status
and category.