Old UCAL CA

Sitting around the kitchen table always wins.

Sniper66

Thy UAL Forum is toxic to say the least with the same loud mouths posting over and over

Not a good example

gettinbumped

The scenario you talk about would have been if this deal hadn't been available. Routinely in contract negotiations, pilots are trying to get a contract deal for a couple of years, and airline management is trying to make a deal go for longer (American Eagle had a, what was it, 10 year contract?). In this case, there was an opportunity to make significant gains and industry leading pay EARLY. What this creates is a time/value situation which simply can't be ignored. As I've said many times, at $1.12 Billion over 2 years, any contractual gains gathered during a traditional section 6 would have to be mammoth to be "worth it". Our deal expires January 1, 2017. In a traditional Section 6, with history as a guide, we would be looking at late 2018 or 2019 to see an agreement. That means that Section 6 would have to be $1.12 Billion richer than our current contract JUST TO BREAK EVEN. If the Section 6 was to be contentious (which is what you are saying in other threads about Munoz not being at all interested in being fair and equitable to the pilot group), every single day that $1.12 Billion number would go up. It's simply a question of math to me. The fact that we got an industry leading pay raise EARLY has real value to me. Not from an emotional standpoint, but from a $$ one.

The real debate is whether we would have a quick, lucrative Section 6 or not, which would make it worth waiting for. That's the risk. But what I'm having a hard time with is the "No" voters suggesting that there is NO correlation with Mr. Munoz's arrival in this deal at all (in fact I was scoffed at when I suggested that at least PART of this deal was indeed brought about by a desire to improve the toxic labor relations Jeff cultivated at UAL), but then assume that somehow Section 6 will be a walk in the park with rainbows and butterfly's. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. (By "you" I mean the proverbial you, not you directly). To me, the sure thing is the better path. We will see how the majority feel, and I'll move forward from there either way.

AllenAllert

- Vote NO -

Slats Extend

Piloten sind ihre eigenen schlimmsten Feinde.

VOTE NO!

jaykris

Thats because the other forum is 100% whiners and downers. There is NOTHING you could give some on that forum that would make them happy......NOTHING! Especially GK.

J

jetlink

....vote yes!....

El10

Really simple. The company taking a cost neutral or concessionary position at the table.

That is not the case with this TA, which is why you see a healthy approval of it. A clean 1.1 billion added pilot compensation with zero offsets.

Hilltopper89

Not arguing either way here but my simple math says the top 3000 will vote overwhelmingly "yes." The bottom 1000ish can't vote, the majority of FO reserves. If the rest of the pilot group votes half yes and half no this passes somewhere in the neighborhood of 7000-4000, 63% yes.

Andy

The offset is waiting two more years before many section 6 items can be addressed. However, this TA does fix some issues so that they don't have to be fought over in the next contract.

I personally think that it will be a better negotiating environment to fix section 6 issues in a couple of years than what we currently have.