Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > United
New Hires/Re-Docs: Spouse Attendance? >

New Hires/Re-Docs: Spouse Attendance?

Search

Notices

New Hires/Re-Docs: Spouse Attendance?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-07-2014, 06:36 PM
  #41  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 737 fo
Posts: 908
Default

Originally Posted by syd111
Have not flown with one ual pilot that would agree with you or the UAL MEC.
This will be a riff between the groups forever. I and almost all of the LCAL pilots I know hold it against the LUAL pilots for trying to denying us profit sharing.
sleeves is offline  
Old 08-07-2014, 07:05 PM
  #42  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: B-777 left
Posts: 1,415
Default

Originally Posted by sleeves
This will be a riff between the groups forever. I and almost all of the LCAL pilots I know hold it against the LUAL pilots for trying to denying us profit sharing.
Good to know, I feel the exact opposite as you probably know.
syd111 is offline  
Old 08-07-2014, 07:07 PM
  #43  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Gets weekends off
Posts: 1,168
Default

Originally Posted by sleeves
This will be a riff between the groups forever. I and almost all of the LCAL pilots I know hold it against the LUAL pilots for trying to denying us profit sharing.
That's not true. We tried to get the company to pay an equivalent amount to the LUAL pilots. The company paid something outside the contract to one group and not the other.

Actually the Arbitrator said the only thing ALPA could do was force the company to take back the excess profit sharing that was paid to LCAL pilots and not LUAL pilots and UAL ALPA said NO.

So if LUAL ALPA wanted to have it taken away, we obviously could have and didn't.

So try spreading your propaganda elsewhere...
pilot64golfer is offline  
Old 08-07-2014, 08:24 PM
  #44  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 737 fo
Posts: 908
Default

Originally Posted by syd111
I'll try this again, I have not flown with one line pilot that would agree that the ual mec should not have taken away the money from the cal side. Not one. What would I have done, I would have gone after the money, sorry that does not go along with your line of thinking. I do not think the MEC did the right thing at all. Like I said I have not flown with one ual pilot that feels the mec did the right thing, I am sure they are out there but I have not flown with any of them.

Again jmo and the sample of folks I have flown with, that being said it may be a dead issue but I sure have a lot of guys bring it up along the way.
Really pilot64golfer?? Looks like you are wrong.
sleeves is offline  
Old 08-07-2014, 08:27 PM
  #45  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 737 fo
Posts: 908
Default

Originally Posted by pilot64golfer
That's not true. We tried to get the company to pay an equivalent amount to the LUAL pilots. The company paid something outside the contract to one group and not the other.

Actually the Arbitrator said the only thing ALPA could do was force the company to take back the excess profit sharing that was paid to LCAL pilots and not LUAL pilots and UAL ALPA said NO.

So if LUAL ALPA wanted to have it taken away, we obviously could have and didn't.

So try spreading your propaganda elsewhere...
Yet you accepted the protections given outside of the contract to protect flying in the SFO base. No one at CAL made a big deal about it or filed any grievances when the company GAVE you protections and did not open a LCAL 737 base.
sleeves is offline  
Old 08-08-2014, 07:51 AM
  #46  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Gets weekends off
Posts: 1,168
Default

Originally Posted by sleeves
Really pilot64golfer?? Looks like you are wrong.
You quoted syd and not me.
pilot64golfer is offline  
Old 08-08-2014, 08:59 AM
  #47  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 737 fo
Posts: 908
Default

Originally Posted by pilot64golfer
You quoted syd and not me.
I know I did. Syd makes my point. This will be a riff between the groups forever. I and almost all of the LCAL pilots I know hold it against the LUAL pilots for trying to deny us profit sharing. Syd confirms this in his post. You have falsely accused me of spreading propaganda, propaganda for what I am not sure.
sleeves is offline  
Old 08-08-2014, 10:07 AM
  #48  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 737 fo
Posts: 908
Default

Originally Posted by Pkcola
Just to refresh our memory, would you remind the UAL side why the CAL side deserved profit sharing.

Just for reference - Had the case been heard prior to JCBA, SLI and merging the MEC's the UAL side would have asked that the money be taken back. You were effectively given a gift and should be grateful.
I guess for the same reason your side was given protections to flying out of SFO that was not in your contract....What was it called Emotional impact??
sleeves is offline  
Old 08-08-2014, 11:30 AM
  #49  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 737 fo
Posts: 908
Default

Originally Posted by Pkcola
The two didn't have anything to do with the other. In fact it was a deal put together collectively with Jeff, JP and JH at the table. It's kinda why JP didn't file a lawsuit.

I'm beginning to think that most of your understanding of the short merger history is either made up or told you by the really misinformed Captain's. Either way you should stop the parrot talk an do a little research. You'll be surprised at how far behind the power curve you really are - that means wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 25, 2013

Dear Fellow Pilots:

As you are likely aware by now, the company has issued System Bid 14-02 for the Continental Pilots. This System Bid deserves some mention.

The JCBA Section 8, Staffing, specifies that bid awards for United Airlines be Vacancy Bids, very much like the current system under which the United Pilots are familiar. However, the Joint Implementation Team (JIT) was unable to reach agreement on early implementation of the JCBA Section 8 Vacancy bids for the Continental side of the operation. As such, the company utilized the Continental System Bid while transitioning. This should be the last CAL System Bid as all future bids should be fully implemented under the United Pilot Agreement (UPA) Section 8-C Vacancy Bidding provisions. There is a large amount of UPA “soft time” (e.g., trip and duty rigs, M5D, training and vacation credit increases) being introduced into the CAL operation between now and September, creating an understaffing situation on the CAL side. The Company felt that it needed to put a bid out now in order to get pilots trained and in place for the big M5D credit increase slated for September. The number of vacancies announced under the CAL System Bid, while appearing large, also includes 270 of those previously unfilled vacancies from the August 2012 award – they are not in addition to the August 2012 bid.

The CAL language requires System Bids twice a year, the last being in August 2012. The current bid was due in December 2012. As late as last week, the CAL Bid specified a new CAL 757/767 base in LAX and a new CAL 737 base in SFO. Through the efforts of the United MEC, we were able to convince the company of the ramifications of such a bid ahead of an Integrated Seniority List (ISL) in a few months. We reminded the company that a CAL 757/767 in LAX was a violation of the TPA and gave notice of a TPA dispute. A CAL 737 base in SFO, while permitted in the TPA extension, would have had an emotional impact on the United Pilots. The company has complied with the terms of the TPA and has codified the cancellation of any outstanding bids upon ISL without training class dates. The CAL Pilots currently bid for training dates so this will necessitate that the senior pilots actually bid for training lest they lose those bids to pilots junior to them.

Coinciding with the CAL bids will be an announcement of recalls for the United furloughees. While we hoped the number of initial recalls would be larger, it is another important step towards returning all our furloughees to the United property. In the interim, we encourage United furloughees to accept pilot positions at Continental to curtail the filling of vacancies with new hires. We are also striving to increase training at the Denver Training Center to capacity.

The first Vacancy Bid after ISL will be system-wide and open to all United Pilots. The United MEC wants an equitable transition and implementation so that there is no inverse disparity after ISL. This is for the benefit of all Pilots as we look to the future of operating as one Airline under one Contract and one Seniority List.

We are United,




Captain Jay Heppner
Chairman, United Master Executive Council

These protections were not in your contract and I did not hear any of you complain when you were GIVEN such protections. Being the only group that had not been given Profit sharing would have been the same type of emotional impact.

Nice try with the personal attracts but as usual you are wrong with them as well.
sleeves is offline  
Old 08-08-2014, 11:51 AM
  #50  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Default

Are we really comparing a monetary payout that was deemed illegal through arbitration versus the opening of a Guppy domicile with airplanes meant to replace LUAL 757s?
SpecialTracking is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
2 wheels 2 work
United
13
12-23-2010 01:28 AM
JetBlast77
Regional
44
07-19-2009 01:19 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices