Letter to Council 5 Reps
12-07-2015, 08:58 PM
#71
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
Are you happy with the UPA and the company's implementation of it?
12-07-2015, 10:14 PM
#72
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
12-07-2015, 10:24 PM
#73
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
It's all a gamble really. You favor dumping this and going for section 6, and I am fine if we go that route. I prefer the bet of taking a gain now in case there are none to be had in the future as section 6 drags on for years. Given the competitive landscape that I just highlighted, I would prefer to take this gain now. I think that our international operation could be in for a beating similar to the one that our domestic operation took 15 years ago. Perhaps I am overly concerned about it. I certainly hope that I am proven wrong. If the AIP is shot down, I won't have a fit about it.
12-08-2015, 05:22 AM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
A thought provoking post from the other forum
Negotiating environment:
• Company ability to pay:
o Unprecedented and growing company profits,
o Unprecedented and growing industry profits,
o Unprecedented financial stability for the company and industry,
• General case for improvements:
o Unprecedented low pilot share of revenue,
o Shrinking pilot share (revenue growth outpacing wage growth),
o Tightening pilot labor pool,
o Shared sacrifice, shared rewards
• Political environment:
o Trending political recognition that labor should have a larger share
• Motivation:
o Labor peace,
o FRMS,
o MOU22 replacement,
o Scope choke
Discussion:
• Does the AIP reflect full value for the conditions?
• Should the company receive a discount for early agreement? If so, how much?
• Windows close?
• Should the AIP be weighed differently than an extension achieved through full Section 6?
• Should the AIP be accepted as an adequate step in a broader strategy?
Negotiating environment:
• Company ability to pay:
o Unprecedented and growing company profits,
o Unprecedented and growing industry profits,
o Unprecedented financial stability for the company and industry,
• General case for improvements:
o Unprecedented low pilot share of revenue,
o Shrinking pilot share (revenue growth outpacing wage growth),
o Tightening pilot labor pool,
o Shared sacrifice, shared rewards
• Political environment:
o Trending political recognition that labor should have a larger share
• Motivation:
o Labor peace,
o FRMS,
o MOU22 replacement,
o Scope choke
Discussion:
• Does the AIP reflect full value for the conditions?
• Should the company receive a discount for early agreement? If so, how much?
• Windows close?
• Should the AIP be weighed differently than an extension achieved through full Section 6?
• Should the AIP be accepted as an adequate step in a broader strategy?
12-08-2015, 08:25 AM
#75
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 31
UAL Analyst Estimates | United Continental Holdings Stock - Yahoo! Finance
Flytolive, I agree with most of you points above. I am and will be undecided until I see actual language. Your only points I question are:
o Unprecedented and growing company profits
o Unprecedented and growing industry profits
I question the "and growing" part.
I also question the pilot share portion. Yes, we are lower compared to revenue, but we are now employee wages etc are higher cost than fuel....I'm sure it won't stay that way forever.
I posted the link above that shows unbiased analyst predictions that our profits will decrease next year. If you multiply out the earnings per share (EPS) predictions for 2015 and 2016 you'll find roughly a $4.5bil and $3.0bil respectively for the years. You can look up DAL, SWA, and the others if you want for an industry comparison. I do believe that this shows that we are at a "financial peak" right now. I'd be very careful to assume that the future will be so rosy. Once fuel comes back up we could be in a totally different picture. Here's to hoping the company hedges fuel at the right time like SWA did years ago and maybe doing now...HA!
Anyway I hope we get to data we need in order to make a sound decision on this AIP. I am by no means a dollar sign only kind of guy.
Flytolive, I agree with most of you points above. I am and will be undecided until I see actual language. Your only points I question are:
o Unprecedented and growing company profits
o Unprecedented and growing industry profits
I question the "and growing" part.
I also question the pilot share portion. Yes, we are lower compared to revenue, but we are now employee wages etc are higher cost than fuel....I'm sure it won't stay that way forever.
I posted the link above that shows unbiased analyst predictions that our profits will decrease next year. If you multiply out the earnings per share (EPS) predictions for 2015 and 2016 you'll find roughly a $4.5bil and $3.0bil respectively for the years. You can look up DAL, SWA, and the others if you want for an industry comparison. I do believe that this shows that we are at a "financial peak" right now. I'd be very careful to assume that the future will be so rosy. Once fuel comes back up we could be in a totally different picture. Here's to hoping the company hedges fuel at the right time like SWA did years ago and maybe doing now...HA!
Anyway I hope we get to data we need in order to make a sound decision on this AIP. I am by no means a dollar sign only kind of guy.
12-08-2015, 03:18 PM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 300
December 3, 2015
Captain Glenn Johnson, Council 5 Captain Representative
First Officer Mark Leneski, Council 5 FO Representative
First Officer Phil Wenzel, Council 5 Secretary/Treasurer
United Local Executive Council 5 Air Line Pilot’s Association, International 9550 W. Higgins Road, Suite 1000 Rosemont, Illinois 60018
Dear Glenn, Mark, and Phil:
We write to you as a broad cross-section of very concerned Council 5 pilots regarding the recent Agreement-In-Principle (“AIP”) negotiated by the Negotiating Committee and the company. As you know, some information regarding the AIP has been made public to both the pilot group and the press. We fully recognize that this AIP may not achieve all of the goals of a full Section 6 negotiations process, but it would be naive to suggest that it does not represent a substantial amount of economic value to the pilot group. We feel that an agreement with this kind of potential future economic value should be decided by the entire pilot group, as has recently occurred at other major airlines.
This letter is not intended to debate the merits, or lack thereof, of the AIP. It is a request of you, our elected representatives, that an AIP of this magnitude should not be decided solely by the MEC. It should be affirmed and presented to the pilots, along with any supporting factual data and information for a membership ratification vote. As our elected representatives, we have great faith in the decisions you make that affect our careers. In the matter of this AIP we would like all United pilots to be fully informed and have the opportunity to decide its fate.
As you know, with over 12,000 pilots at United Airlines, there is certainly no one “correct” answer in this debate and every pilot’s opinion on the matter is valid. Most recently we witnessed failed contract ratification processes at both Delta and Southwest and we have also witnessed a successful contract ratification process at FedEx. In all 3 cases, the pilots collectively decided their future and we believe that United’s pilots deserve the same opportunity. Further, it could be argued that if the pilot group ultimately decides to not ratify a Tentative Agreement on this issue, then the leverage created out of that situation would be greater than if the MEC were to reject the TA without sending it to the pilots.
We all understand that there are times where the MEC should, as a body, not send a Tentative Agreement to the pilot group for membership ratification. For example, if there were an agreement that was concessionary in nature from the current contract and absolutely not in line with our union’s long term strategic goals (e.g., an obvious degradation to the terms of our Scope section such allowing the company to outsource flying with greater than 76 seats). That does not appear to be the case here. It has been 3 years since the United Pilot Agreement went into effect and as a result, the line pilots would be voting on this contract extension with their eyes wide open to both the positive and negative aspects of the contract.
In closing, we strongly request that you, as our elected representatives, vote at the MEC level to allow the pilot group to decide the fate of this critical career issue.
Sincerely,
Michael De Santis
EWR B756 Captain
Robert Slovitsky
EWR A320 Captain
David Dahl
EWR B737 Captain
James LaRosa
EWR B737 Captain
Peter Faller
EWR B777 First Officer
Neal Schwartz
EWR B737 Captain
Captain Glenn Johnson, Council 5 Captain Representative
First Officer Mark Leneski, Council 5 FO Representative
First Officer Phil Wenzel, Council 5 Secretary/Treasurer
United Local Executive Council 5 Air Line Pilot’s Association, International 9550 W. Higgins Road, Suite 1000 Rosemont, Illinois 60018
Dear Glenn, Mark, and Phil:
We write to you as a broad cross-section of very concerned Council 5 pilots regarding the recent Agreement-In-Principle (“AIP”) negotiated by the Negotiating Committee and the company. As you know, some information regarding the AIP has been made public to both the pilot group and the press. We fully recognize that this AIP may not achieve all of the goals of a full Section 6 negotiations process, but it would be naive to suggest that it does not represent a substantial amount of economic value to the pilot group. We feel that an agreement with this kind of potential future economic value should be decided by the entire pilot group, as has recently occurred at other major airlines.
This letter is not intended to debate the merits, or lack thereof, of the AIP. It is a request of you, our elected representatives, that an AIP of this magnitude should not be decided solely by the MEC. It should be affirmed and presented to the pilots, along with any supporting factual data and information for a membership ratification vote. As our elected representatives, we have great faith in the decisions you make that affect our careers. In the matter of this AIP we would like all United pilots to be fully informed and have the opportunity to decide its fate.
As you know, with over 12,000 pilots at United Airlines, there is certainly no one “correct” answer in this debate and every pilot’s opinion on the matter is valid. Most recently we witnessed failed contract ratification processes at both Delta and Southwest and we have also witnessed a successful contract ratification process at FedEx. In all 3 cases, the pilots collectively decided their future and we believe that United’s pilots deserve the same opportunity. Further, it could be argued that if the pilot group ultimately decides to not ratify a Tentative Agreement on this issue, then the leverage created out of that situation would be greater than if the MEC were to reject the TA without sending it to the pilots.
We all understand that there are times where the MEC should, as a body, not send a Tentative Agreement to the pilot group for membership ratification. For example, if there were an agreement that was concessionary in nature from the current contract and absolutely not in line with our union’s long term strategic goals (e.g., an obvious degradation to the terms of our Scope section such allowing the company to outsource flying with greater than 76 seats). That does not appear to be the case here. It has been 3 years since the United Pilot Agreement went into effect and as a result, the line pilots would be voting on this contract extension with their eyes wide open to both the positive and negative aspects of the contract.
In closing, we strongly request that you, as our elected representatives, vote at the MEC level to allow the pilot group to decide the fate of this critical career issue.
Sincerely,
Michael De Santis
EWR B756 Captain
Robert Slovitsky
EWR A320 Captain
David Dahl
EWR B737 Captain
James LaRosa
EWR B737 Captain
Peter Faller
EWR B777 First Officer
Neal Schwartz
EWR B737 Captain
12-08-2015, 03:29 PM
#77
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Why do you say that? Any agreement that significantly effects pay and working conditions requires membership ratification. What is so scary about letting the democratic process work? The pilots of DAL and SWA clearly have shown that they can be "trusted" to make a good decision once given all the information. Are you suggesting the pilots at United can't?
What these pilots realize is that a) sometimes the minority is the most vocal thus making it difficult to take the true pulse of the pilot group, and b) there is an unfortunate amount of politics in our MEC
What these pilots realize is that a) sometimes the minority is the most vocal thus making it difficult to take the true pulse of the pilot group, and b) there is an unfortunate amount of politics in our MEC
12-08-2015, 03:54 PM
#78
UCH Pilot
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: 787
Posts: 776
12-08-2015, 03:55 PM
#79
UCH Pilot
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: 787
Posts: 776
12-08-2015, 03:57 PM
#80
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
