Leaked New pay rates.
12-21-2015, 11:06 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,173
Agree. All the arguments I hear is that the company will immediately want to do a full Section 6 if turned down. Well what if this ends up like C2002 that ended in 2008 and it takes until late 2012 for us to get a new agreement? That means we get something maybe in 2010 or 2011 and we don't get extra long-haul flying we would have gotten. What if the company just says "OK we will add codeshares since our pilots don't want to do that ultra-long haul flying." Honestly I don't do that flying, but when I look at the latest 787 CA vacancy and see mostly double digit seniority number bidding it, I would think that those guys are pretty happy flying those long flights. I imagine that's why they are bidding it.
Another point: If this FRMS thing is so valuable to us as a pilot group, then why wasn't it presented that way during the last TA roadshows? I never heard anyone say "This FRMS is worth hundreds of millions a year and its in our favor". Only now its magically all this leverage? What if its not? What if this is a win-win and we say no. Last contract we were told payrates, work rules, and SCOPE. Those were the wins.
I haven't decided either way, but I can tell you that I'm not super convinced that the company would immediately jump back into negotiations if we vote this down. The Delta pilots said the same thing. And it didn't happen. We could end up not getting contract until after the flight attendants.
Negotiations are give and take. We all want only takes and no gives. No question there. But these payrates are way more than I ever thought I'd see and some of the people I've talked to have said they are pretty eye opening. Yes, we want better work rules, but I'm working under work rules mostly far better than my previous contract. This is all just my perspective and I'm just sharing that before you flame me.
Another point: If this FRMS thing is so valuable to us as a pilot group, then why wasn't it presented that way during the last TA roadshows? I never heard anyone say "This FRMS is worth hundreds of millions a year and its in our favor". Only now its magically all this leverage? What if its not? What if this is a win-win and we say no. Last contract we were told payrates, work rules, and SCOPE. Those were the wins.
I haven't decided either way, but I can tell you that I'm not super convinced that the company would immediately jump back into negotiations if we vote this down. The Delta pilots said the same thing. And it didn't happen. We could end up not getting contract until after the flight attendants.
Negotiations are give and take. We all want only takes and no gives. No question there. But these payrates are way more than I ever thought I'd see and some of the people I've talked to have said they are pretty eye opening. Yes, we want better work rules, but I'm working under work rules mostly far better than my previous contract. This is all just my perspective and I'm just sharing that before you flame me.
We can play the what if game all day. My opinion is that the company wants the FRMS. If the TA goes away, I think they will come back rather quickly with either another deal, or want to open early with the hopes of getting this done expeditiously. Rather quickly is relative. That is what I think. No one is saying that will happen immediately. It doesn't work that way and never will. It becomes more of a priority the closer the 777-300ER's and A350's get. Outsourcing to Star Alliance is a real possibility, but UAL has spent significant dollars on new lift, and they really don't like to do that without some prospect of a return on investment. Whether or not you plan on doing long haul is really immaterial. The widebodies drive all bid vacancies through trickle down. Every 777-300ER we get, impacts every guppy newhire FO bid in EWR. The importance of that drives the airline, and where you decide to take the pay on a move up in equipment and live with the current reserve rules, or wait to hold a line. It impacts everyone's pay.
As for FRMS in the last contract, that's easy, it didn't exist. FAR 117 is driving all this and wasn't yet implemented. So there was nothing to discuss.
Work rules. Hmm, depends on which side of the fence you came from.
Yes, there are some things better, but overall, we are still living with the huge givebacks from our bankruptcy contract, and work rules are far more onerous today than they were. Do I want to return to those days, is it realistic to ask or expect that? No. But I do think we can do better to improve the situation, but with a 2 year extension, that's not going to happen.
Also, timing. My guess is that the current booming economy will last plenty long enough to get a full contract done. Again, sooner than later, and here is the kicker, I think before the next 2 years. Meaning I think we could have a contract before the end of the proposed 2 year extension. My best guess would be within a year, not 4-6. That would make any QOL gains much more meaningful than 2 years of 13%, for me anyway. My opinion is that if we take the 2 year extension, then we have to negotiate a contract in 2 years. My guess is that the economy won't be as good then as it is now. I think we stand to get less when we start the full contract in 2 years than we can get now by starting the process this time around. My crystal ball doesn't go out that far, but history has demonstrated the cyclical nature of this business. Timing is very important and I think we will be much better off doing the full contract now instead of 2+ years from now.
Our contract really has nothing to do with the FA's so when we get it doesn't really matter. It ****es off the FA's, but that is our management. Give and take yes. Record profits? You expect to give? Not me. I still want a lot of what we already gave back in bankruptcy. They stole my retirement, they stole my work rules, they stole my QOL. Why not work to get some of that back now?
No flames, just good healthy discussion.
Dave
12-21-2015, 11:14 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: B777 CA - SFO
Posts: 730
Sec 6 CAN open early, if both parties agree to. They don't HAVE to open until Jan 31st 2017. Rumor out there is that our Neg Cmte hasn't done any real prep work for a May opener because they will probably be replaced shortly after the Master Chairman election in the first quarter.
12-21-2015, 12:07 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: 320 Captain
Posts: 666
Sec 6 CAN open early, if both parties agree to. They don't HAVE to open until Jan 31st 2017. Rumor out there is that our Neg Cmte hasn't done any real prep work for a May opener because they will probably be replaced shortly after the Master Chairman election in the first quarter.
25-A Amendable Date
This Agreement shall become effective on the date of signing hereof, shall continue in full force and effect through and including January 31, 2017, and shall renew itself without change each succeeding February 1st thereafter unless written notice of intended change is served in accordance with Section 6, Title I, of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, by either party hereto at least thirty (30) days but no more than two hundred seventy (270) days prior to January 31, 2017, or any year thereafter. The parties shall commence direct negotiations with respect to such notice no later than thirty (30) days following the delivery of such notice.
This Agreement shall become effective on the date of signing hereof, shall continue in full force and effect through and including January 31, 2017, and shall renew itself without change each succeeding February 1st thereafter unless written notice of intended change is served in accordance with Section 6, Title I, of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, by either party hereto at least thirty (30) days but no more than two hundred seventy (270) days prior to January 31, 2017, or any year thereafter. The parties shall commence direct negotiations with respect to such notice no later than thirty (30) days following the delivery of such notice.
Hopefully some, if not all, will be replaced though. 10+ years for some of those guys is a long enough time away from flying the line. Let them go sit reserve. Be good if Todd I. (If he gets the MC position) gets a clean slate to work with.
DC
12-21-2015, 12:32 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: B777 CA - SFO
Posts: 730
Sorry but you are wrong.
And as far as the Negotiating Committee goes, that is up the the MEC as a group, not the Master Chairman. Negotiators are elected by the MEC to that position. Obviously the Master Chair has some influence but the MEC votes who is on the committee.
Hopefully some, if not all, will be replaced though. 10+ years for some of those guys is a long enough time away from flying the line. Let them go sit reserve. Be good if Todd I. (If he gets the MC position) gets a clean slate to work with.
DC
And as far as the Negotiating Committee goes, that is up the the MEC as a group, not the Master Chairman. Negotiators are elected by the MEC to that position. Obviously the Master Chair has some influence but the MEC votes who is on the committee.
Hopefully some, if not all, will be replaced though. 10+ years for some of those guys is a long enough time away from flying the line. Let them go sit reserve. Be good if Todd I. (If he gets the MC position) gets a clean slate to work with.
DC
How will the company proceed if our side is not ready/willing to engage in early discussions? Quite a few moving pieces going forward depend on these AIP shenanigans.
12-21-2015, 12:34 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Captain
Posts: 1,561
Sorry but you are wrong.
And as far as the Negotiating Committee goes, that is up the the MEC as a group, not the Master Chairman. Negotiators are elected by the MEC to that position. Obviously the Master Chair has some influence but the MEC votes who is on the committee.
Hopefully some, if not all, will be replaced though. 10+ years for some of those guys is a long enough time away from flying the line. Let them go sit reserve. Be good if Todd I. (If he gets the MC position) gets a clean slate to work with.
DC
And as far as the Negotiating Committee goes, that is up the the MEC as a group, not the Master Chairman. Negotiators are elected by the MEC to that position. Obviously the Master Chair has some influence but the MEC votes who is on the committee.
Hopefully some, if not all, will be replaced though. 10+ years for some of those guys is a long enough time away from flying the line. Let them go sit reserve. Be good if Todd I. (If he gets the MC position) gets a clean slate to work with.
DC
DC
Who is running for the VC position with Todd
12-21-2015, 12:54 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: Left
Posts: 1,825
Certainly hoping UAL orders the CSeries versus the older E190s. The early Republic positions on the CS300 certainly could be used. United could only benefit in future aircraft negotiations down the line if Bombardier were financially healthy (after a large UAL order) and producing good airplanes - you need more than 2 manufacturers to bring all prices lower. SWISS is scheduled to start using the first of 30 CS100s for intra-Europe flying this Spring.
Like the 319/320, the CS100 and CS300 have the same type. So, there is a strong likelihood you could fly both during a tour if UAL orders both types for added flexibility.
Like the 319/320, the CS100 and CS300 have the same type. So, there is a strong likelihood you could fly both during a tour if UAL orders both types for added flexibility.
12-21-2015, 01:12 PM
#50
UCH Pilot
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: 787
Posts: 776
I'm just amazed that everyone seems to know exactly what the company wants to do, when they only things they actually asked for was a 2 year extension for some pay raises and a few other changes.
Also, if all it takes is a full contract negotiation to get all these things "fixed" why didn't we "fix" them on the last contract?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
