Profit Sharing Grievance
03-08-2014, 11:14 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Position: B737ca
Posts: 156
I agree with your take on the contract, the profit sharing was not in the contract, it was a side agreement to end an outstanding 767 grievance and the arbitrator ruled correctly. That said, I did not take a penny from any other pilot. If you would feel better at night if we had to give the money back then so be it. I understand you were probably thinking this meant another check for the UAL guys but in the end the only option was to take our away and give it back to Jeff.
They won't listen to you but nice try, some of these guys STILL think you took their money
03-08-2014, 11:17 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
I believe what has been lost in this discussion and chest thumping is how JP and the sCAL management ignored the fact they were no longer living in the CAL vacuum any more.
<<Bingo>>
IT is true the CAL pilots had a legit grievance and they were entitled to compensation for it, but both sides forgot the contract now included nearly 7,000 other pilots. It was this failure which the Neutral ruled on, not the legitimacy of the CAL grievance.
<<Yes, and no. There's no way it was worth 40M. >>
The PS would have been satisfactory had there not been sUAL pilots and the TPA involved and that is why it was wrong.
Personally I'm more than Okay with the monetary award. It had nothing to do with me, nor did it effect me directly. What steamed me was either the ignorance of the two parties or the possibility of intentional disregard for a legal and binding contract between parties.
None of us will know what manipulations the two were up too,
<<Actually, I think the case could be made that the Blue team knew exactly what was going on and that't why they made such a big stink about it, and why they pushed so hard to get the negotiation clock started. The two against one negotiations were killing the blue side and ultimately ruined a great opportunity for BOTH sides to get a decent contract. >>
but what we all know is the neutral decided, after reviewing all the data, that UAL Management had violated its agreement with its pilot employees. Additionally the grievance proceedings, via their willingness to take back the funds, also demonstrated they, UAL Management, is more than willing to encourage division between the two pilot groups represented by ALPA.
<<Bingo>>
IT is true the CAL pilots had a legit grievance and they were entitled to compensation for it, but both sides forgot the contract now included nearly 7,000 other pilots. It was this failure which the Neutral ruled on, not the legitimacy of the CAL grievance.
<<Yes, and no. There's no way it was worth 40M. >>
The PS would have been satisfactory had there not been sUAL pilots and the TPA involved and that is why it was wrong.
Personally I'm more than Okay with the monetary award. It had nothing to do with me, nor did it effect me directly. What steamed me was either the ignorance of the two parties or the possibility of intentional disregard for a legal and binding contract between parties.
None of us will know what manipulations the two were up too,
<<Actually, I think the case could be made that the Blue team knew exactly what was going on and that't why they made such a big stink about it, and why they pushed so hard to get the negotiation clock started. The two against one negotiations were killing the blue side and ultimately ruined a great opportunity for BOTH sides to get a decent contract. >>
but what we all know is the neutral decided, after reviewing all the data, that UAL Management had violated its agreement with its pilot employees. Additionally the grievance proceedings, via their willingness to take back the funds, also demonstrated they, UAL Management, is more than willing to encourage division between the two pilot groups represented by ALPA.
I agreed with almost all of your post, but chose to interject a few times to shed some additional light for those who can't seem to connect the dots.
03-08-2014, 11:21 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
The reason most UA types are torqued is that while the profit from one year to the next was essentially unchanged, we got significantly less money from the company. At least, that's the prevailing view. I am anxious to see how this all plays out.
03-08-2014, 11:36 AM
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
03-08-2014, 07:20 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
?? You have no problem TAKING something you aren't entitled to, but will draw the line at the company getting something for 'free'? What kind of moral base do you have?
03-09-2014, 06:00 AM
#46
Banned
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 218
The entire SLI is LUAL pilots getting something they are not entitled to but I don't see you or anyone else advocating to give it back. Yes, continue to grab your seniority and hide behind "ALPA Merger Policy".
03-09-2014, 06:54 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
Even with all the games your side played in the three years prior to ISL, the outrageous proposed ISL, and the packing of training bids prior to ISL (read loss of bidding power/$ I should have IAW the ISL) I still have some compassion for what your junior pilots are feeling right now.
No matter how loudly and often you state that we aren't entitled to our arbitrated seniority, the facts won't change. We ARE entitled to the seniority laid out in the EKN award. That ENTIRE SLI process was conducted transparently, IAW established agreements and law, and with both sides having the opportunity to make their best case. Mind you, I'm talking process - not the conduct of the Legacy merger committees. The exact opposite is true when it comes to the profit sharing/767-200 grievance settlement debacle.
I 'hide behind' merger policy just like I 'hide behind' the Annotated Code of North Carolina, the United States Code, the JCBA, etc...
A lot of introspection would help you guys.
03-09-2014, 09:55 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 737 fo
Posts: 908
No, we are entitled to get something for sure. The company violated our contract and this was the settlement. The arbitrator did not rule on the 767 grevence only that your side should have been included in the remedy. I know you did not care about the CAL CBA being walked all over but we did. I hope you guys can get something for the company selling our aircraft but to be sure these were CAL A/C that were flowen by CAL pilots that the company violated our contract by selling so yes I feel I should get something.
03-09-2014, 10:08 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,085
I am having a flashback to a typical commute of mine back in 2005:
Buckling into yet another RJ jumpseat for a ride to work at UAL. No more mainline of course. The captain and F/O are quite young, which is typical. The growth at the regionals, as we all know, has caused many of these young pilots to find jet jobs shortly after getting their aviation degrees. Meanwhile, mainline pilots are on the streets. Luckily for me, I have managed to avoid furlough and have even managed to avoid being on reserve during the cutbacks.
How could I have imagined sitting on that jumpseat back then that the young captain would, 8 years later, be furious about me being senior to him at --- United Airlines? In his view, I should have been stapled to the bottom along with all the post 1996 L-UAL hires. When that didn't happen after going through federal arbitration, he now supports a lawsuit because he refuses to accept the result. ALPA pin in the trash.
03-09-2014, 12:27 PM
#50
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
