APC225

3 And what we think ALPA's position ought to

4 be, and what you ought to direct ALPA to do, is to

5 insist that the Company immediately fill 105

6 positions through bids that are available

7 exclusively to United pilots in the very bases,

8 equipments, and seats that the 105 Continental

9 pilots filled in the post September 6, 2013 period.

10 And similarly, because there were eight

11 United pilots who hadn't commenced training for

12 vacancies prior to September 6, 2013, ALPA should be

13 directed to seek the Company's immediate filling of

14 eight positions through bids made available only to

15 pre-merger Continental pilots in the bases,

16 equipment, and seats that the eight United pilots

17 who hadn't commenced training as of September 6,

18 2013 filled.

19 We are not -- and I want to be clear about

20 this. I think we were clear in our brief, and we

21 want to be clear to you so that there's no

22 misunderstanding. While we could have, I think,

rightfully asked for a remedy that would have

2 removed the Continental pilots from their seats and

3 rebid those positions based on the Integrated

4 Seniority List, we're not asking that that be done.

5 We don't blame those pilots for taking

6 those positions. It was not an action by the

7 Continental pilots that led to their sitting in

8 those seats.

9 And we don't think it would be appropriate

10 nor conducive to the kind of unity that we think is

11 critical for the ongoing operation of ALPA at the

12 merged United to be the engines that drive pilots

13 who are sitting in their seats from those seats.

14 So while we think it would be an

15 appropriate remedy, we are not asking for that

16 remedy.

17 Another component of a remedy that one

18 would normally seek in a case like this is back pay

19 for a certain number of pilots who had been deprived

20 of those positions because the Integrated Seniority

21 List was not used to fill them.

22 But under the dispute resolution

procedures, back pay is not available until the

2 Company has been presented with your award, and 15

3 days has gone by, and they haven't complied with it.

4 But out of an abundance of caution, we

5 think that your award ought to include a provision

6 in it that if the Company doesn't comply within 15

7 days of being presented the award, that they be

8 obligated to make back pay payments to the pilots

9 who eventually hold the seats that are -- that are

10 dealt with by your award.

11 And then finally, because we understand

12 the reality of labor relations between a union and a

13 company, we think your award ought to include

14 sufficient wiggle room to allow ALPA, as it's

15 advancing the position that we want you to direct it

16 to advance, to allow ALPA, after consultation with

17 the United DRC representatives, to resolve the case

18 without litigation in a manner different from what

19 you award, if, in the exercise of their best

20 judgment and their responsibility as a labor

21 organization, and, again, after consulting with the

22 United DRC representatives, they conclude that

another resolution is a better solution to more

2 quickly benefit the affected pilots.

3 So that's the shape of the award that we

4 think you ought to issue, an issue that we gave you

5 a proposed award along with our prehearing brief.

APC225

Always interesting reading. Especially the part where ALPA not be bound by any decision to back pay pilots denied captain seats or remove current captains from their seats, but allow the union and the company "wiggle room" to settle it with a side deal. Those deals never seem to go our way, but LUAL pilots are in complete control of our union now so it will be interesting to see if there's a different result.

Coach67

Not factually supported.

sleeves

No misunderstanding. You really want this option and think it appropriate, but don't want the repercussions. We are going to hit you, but don't hit back. You got your pin on?

To be clear, I hope guys get money out of this. Unlike some that were opposed to our profit sharing, I like when Pilots get money from MGT.
MGT has gotten enough.

And before someone starts thinking I am trying to protect my slot, I was trained well before SLI.

ChrisJT6

This is the repercussion of 3 years of dragging on the JCBA and SLI while you enjoyed great movement during horrible financial times. Your reps made it clear they'd be happy moving on forever in that situation and you boast often of your brave no vote to protect an already lost 50 seat scope....do you really think overuse of 50 seat aircraft is really doing well for our airline? Or is 50 seat scope a convenient issue to hide your nasty former whipsaw position. Now man up and deal with the repercussions of your actions...or throw around scary threats if thats how you must move on.
As for the brave slick tie...what are you doing to fix our unions issues? Work to fix the only group we currently have or shut your hole.

intrepidcv11

Sweet, let's give them E-195's next time. We need the company to succeed! Doubt you are this much of a tough guy in person. Haven't flown with a UAL guy yet who had the belief/cojones to insist that I only voted NO to stuff more upgrades. Would love to know how you would have forced Jeff to get away from the 'BK contracts are the new normal' mantra he stuck to for four years. Then again given your helpful scope attitude, you probably would have voted YES to DAL's BK contract.

CRM114

It's amusing to watch you guys personalize this as if you have input or control of the outcome. Rant away brothers.

The TP&A contained language to dispute the process and application of the agreement and this dispute is the result of the company getting caught speeding on the implementation. The company created this dispute yet you want to fight each other, you guys are brilliant.

sleeves

They are parking the 50 seaters as fast as they can. Overuse of the 50 seater?? Yes they are over used, they lose money so you want to give away bigger profitable airplanes to company's YOU DO NOT work for? The 50 seater were gonna be parked. We could have taken back that flying.

We were not dragging our feet. MGT. Controls the clock during negotiations. We were waiting for the right deal. We were offered Deltas deal before this merger mess and tuned it down. I guess you probably think that was just premerger posturing.
As for union work I have volunteered on committees in the past. Mine was lost due to the merger, not very many CAL types welcome now. So shut your hole.

ChrisJT6

First, I'm not the one making threats!
Second, I hardly suggested we give them E195s, but nice odd point. Most UAL guys are glad it's over. I personally don't ask CAL guys about their votes but I know how their LEC5 rep felt as he publicizes he would rather do just keep the one way movement going. FYI, albeit imperfect thanks to highly successful whipsaw; we have a non-BK contract!

sleeves

Like I said, I hope they get The Money!!