Self funding TA?
01-02-2016, 08:35 AM
#111
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
The company gained ALPA's acquiescence to add 1 hour of flight time and 1:30 of duty time to FAR 117 limits on ULFs before pilot waiving is required without fixing the all the noise problems on the 777 that an extra premium seat also doesn't fix.
01-02-2016, 08:41 AM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,202
To my understanding that already exists with current FRMS waivers.
01-02-2016, 08:51 AM
#113
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
I do agree that the main thing management is after is pushing Section 6 back two years.
01-02-2016, 09:00 AM
#114
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,202
On the more serious side of this TA;
What I find forming in all the NO voters is basically three (OK I added a fourth) things:
1. Some just vote NO because they always will.
2. Some believe this was/is an opportunity to stick it to the man (UAL).
3. The main failure of the negotiations seems to be the reserve plight and the plight seems to be two things QOL for commuters and Short Call.
4. Some believe 13% (on top of the 3%) is chump change.
I know it's a bit simple but go back and read the posts and I believe those three/four things summarize them all. Maybe someone else can shed some other ideas as the vote approached this next week.
What I find forming in all the NO voters is basically three (OK I added a fourth) things:
1. Some just vote NO because they always will.
2. Some believe this was/is an opportunity to stick it to the man (UAL).
3. The main failure of the negotiations seems to be the reserve plight and the plight seems to be two things QOL for commuters and Short Call.
4. Some believe 13% (on top of the 3%) is chump change.
I know it's a bit simple but go back and read the posts and I believe those three/four things summarize them all. Maybe someone else can shed some other ideas as the vote approached this next week.
In my opinion if the Union and company had not even mentioned Reserve rules in their opening letter we would not even be discussing it. Lets say they said they were going to fix LCA scheduling and pay instead of reserve. If they came out and said we didn't come to an agreement we would be *****ing about that instead.
Don't tell me you are going to fix something then don't do it!
01-02-2016, 09:05 AM
#115
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
His response was ambiguous enough that I wasn't sure if he caught my sarcasm; I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
My only concern was the CAL reference - we need to leave this particular division behind - we are now all one company and one union. Infighting this many years after the merger is counterproductive for all of us. It shouldn't matter if you're LCAL, LUAL, or a postmerger hire.
My only concern was the CAL reference - we need to leave this particular division behind - we are now all one company and one union. Infighting this many years after the merger is counterproductive for all of us. It shouldn't matter if you're LCAL, LUAL, or a postmerger hire.
01-02-2016, 09:36 AM
#116
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
On the more serious side of this TA;
What I find forming in all the NO voters is basically three (OK I added a fourth) things:
1. Some just vote NO because they always will.
2. Some believe this was/is an opportunity to stick it to the man (UAL).
3. The main failure of the negotiations seems to be the reserve plight and the plight seems to be two things QOL for commuters and Short Call.
4. Some believe 13% (on top of the 3%) is chump change.
I know it's a bit simple but go back and read the posts and I believe those three/four things summarize them all. Maybe someone else can shed some other ideas as the vote approached this next week.
What I find forming in all the NO voters is basically three (OK I added a fourth) things:
1. Some just vote NO because they always will.
2. Some believe this was/is an opportunity to stick it to the man (UAL).
3. The main failure of the negotiations seems to be the reserve plight and the plight seems to be two things QOL for commuters and Short Call.
4. Some believe 13% (on top of the 3%) is chump change.
I know it's a bit simple but go back and read the posts and I believe those three/four things summarize them all. Maybe someone else can shed some other ideas as the vote approached this next week.
You said all that but didn't explain why the yes vote should prevail. Excuse the NO voters for not trusting the timing and reasoning of the company offer. No, I don't trust them because they've done nothing to earn that trust. I've voted more yes than no on many issues with a more reasoned MEC recommendation. You are right the 13% is chump change compared to a contract that offers compensation along with QOL. Let's not work back to the draconian contracts that Lorenzo forced on our CAL brothers. Many of those guys still remember. This piecemeal approach is a move in that direction.
01-02-2016, 11:03 AM
#117
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
You ask a lot of questions but don't provide a lot of answers, so I am going to answer you and there will be a few questions embedded that I would request you answer for me.
The company was not provided FRMS relief. Read our current FRMS language and that of the TA and tell me what relief they received. In fact they now have to block off a first class/business seat on all 777 double augmented flights. That is a loss for them big time. In return they got the same ability they have now to apply for FRMS waivers, and ALPA is still involved with the process. So tell me what in there is worth a 13% raise?
MOU 22 fix is crap, it leaves out more than half of the pilot group. Narrow body guys will still not receive any add pay and will still have to file FSAP reports for not extending the first 30 min. How is that a win for the pilot group? It sounds like a win for the company.
I really, really, don't understand the logic.
So why don't we tell the company to play ball if they want MOU 22 and we can reinstate it for the benefit of the entire pilot group. As far as FRMS goes if that was the big need for the company and our major leverage then both sides blew it. The company got nothing and we lost nothing. So why not add those changes into an LOA, in my opinion we are not giving anything away. The LOA will expire the day we sign a new contract so we will still have to negotiate these changes.
Everyone said the company wants something so lets nail them to the wall. I ask you what exactly did the company get? And what in this TA is worth a 13% raise?
I will tell you what we didn't get. We didn't get reserve enhancements as promised, we didn't get a NSNB as promised, we did not get an MOU 22 fix as promised. So how is this TA NOT a concession? Maybe because most feel that those items are worth less than 13%, and maybe your right, but read between the lines.
The company waved a bunch of crisp $100 bills in front of your face PROBE, in the mean time they slipped the ball out from under the cup and are now waiting for you to choose which cup the ball is under. This negotiation was a shell game, the facts are we are getting paid 13% to extend our concessionary contract out for 2 more years, THATS WHAT THC COMPANY WANTED AND THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE PAYING FOR. The company can pay hourly wages, they can budget and plan for that, what they can't pay for and what becomes VERY expensive is work rules. They know our work rules are subpar, they know we want them fixed and they most likely know what rules are at the top of our list.
So tell me probe what is really going on with these negotiations?
The company was not provided FRMS relief. Read our current FRMS language and that of the TA and tell me what relief they received. In fact they now have to block off a first class/business seat on all 777 double augmented flights. That is a loss for them big time. In return they got the same ability they have now to apply for FRMS waivers, and ALPA is still involved with the process. So tell me what in there is worth a 13% raise?
MOU 22 fix is crap, it leaves out more than half of the pilot group. Narrow body guys will still not receive any add pay and will still have to file FSAP reports for not extending the first 30 min. How is that a win for the pilot group? It sounds like a win for the company.
I really, really, don't understand the logic.
So why don't we tell the company to play ball if they want MOU 22 and we can reinstate it for the benefit of the entire pilot group. As far as FRMS goes if that was the big need for the company and our major leverage then both sides blew it. The company got nothing and we lost nothing. So why not add those changes into an LOA, in my opinion we are not giving anything away. The LOA will expire the day we sign a new contract so we will still have to negotiate these changes.
Everyone said the company wants something so lets nail them to the wall. I ask you what exactly did the company get? And what in this TA is worth a 13% raise?
I will tell you what we didn't get. We didn't get reserve enhancements as promised, we didn't get a NSNB as promised, we did not get an MOU 22 fix as promised. So how is this TA NOT a concession? Maybe because most feel that those items are worth less than 13%, and maybe your right, but read between the lines.
The company waved a bunch of crisp $100 bills in front of your face PROBE, in the mean time they slipped the ball out from under the cup and are now waiting for you to choose which cup the ball is under. This negotiation was a shell game, the facts are we are getting paid 13% to extend our concessionary contract out for 2 more years, THATS WHAT THC COMPANY WANTED AND THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE PAYING FOR. The company can pay hourly wages, they can budget and plan for that, what they can't pay for and what becomes VERY expensive is work rules. They know our work rules are subpar, they know we want them fixed and they most likely know what rules are at the top of our list.
So tell me probe what is really going on with these negotiations?
So, by your logic:
The company is getting nothing, but we get a 13% raise. And that is bad?
The wide body guys have to extend automatically, and ALL pilots, including narrow body pilots (me) get a pay raise. This is bad for narrow body pilots?
You think we should get a new NSNB for a pay raise?
We should give the company a free LOA to fix MOU 22, instead of getting a pay raise out of it, giving away the only leverage we have in this?
01-02-2016, 11:17 AM
#118
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
"My only concern was the CAL reference - we need to leave this particular division behind - we are now all one company and one union."
AGREED!
Allen...
OK YES Voter Summary from what I have read here:
1. A bird in the hand...
2. Regular negotiations historically take upwards of two to three years from the exchange of opening letters. Considering there will be no pay raises (3% yes right now) or changes in QOL issues over the next 2 - 3 years the cost of not taking the money now will never be realized in any improvements accomplished in the final contract TA.
3. Should the current TA be voted in another two years will be added onto the above (2) except those years will be paid at higher rates.
4. The future chances of getting major changes in the contract become more risky as the time increases. This applies to both voting NO and starting regular negotiations on time as well as voting YES and delaying the contract.
5. A large portion of the pilot population is retiring in the next three years and will not see any improvement in the contract, pay or QOL.
Allen...
Basically I'm torn between waiting, hoping a NO vote will help the future pilots and taking the additional funds now with a YES vote.
I believe in reality it would be hard pressed to discount into the present (come up with the present value) any future improvements in pay and QOL. If such a number could be determined I also believe it would be difficult to beat the present value of the TA pay raises.
Personally I've never been emotionally attached to this TA as some seem to be and there's no boogey man sitting in the middle of this which might divide us as a pilot group. Sadly there are those (I mention at least two names) who want to divide us over this and almost every subject we face.
What do I think we lose if we vote NO? Cash.
What do I think we lose if we vote YES? Potential contractural changes over the next 2-5 years. But notice I wrote "potential."
My bird hasn't decided yet.
And yes I also believe the ALPA processes is working well in this TA.
AGREED!
Allen...
OK YES Voter Summary from what I have read here:
1. A bird in the hand...
2. Regular negotiations historically take upwards of two to three years from the exchange of opening letters. Considering there will be no pay raises (3% yes right now) or changes in QOL issues over the next 2 - 3 years the cost of not taking the money now will never be realized in any improvements accomplished in the final contract TA.
3. Should the current TA be voted in another two years will be added onto the above (2) except those years will be paid at higher rates.
4. The future chances of getting major changes in the contract become more risky as the time increases. This applies to both voting NO and starting regular negotiations on time as well as voting YES and delaying the contract.
5. A large portion of the pilot population is retiring in the next three years and will not see any improvement in the contract, pay or QOL.
Allen...
Basically I'm torn between waiting, hoping a NO vote will help the future pilots and taking the additional funds now with a YES vote.
I believe in reality it would be hard pressed to discount into the present (come up with the present value) any future improvements in pay and QOL. If such a number could be determined I also believe it would be difficult to beat the present value of the TA pay raises.
Personally I've never been emotionally attached to this TA as some seem to be and there's no boogey man sitting in the middle of this which might divide us as a pilot group. Sadly there are those (I mention at least two names) who want to divide us over this and almost every subject we face.
What do I think we lose if we vote NO? Cash.
What do I think we lose if we vote YES? Potential contractural changes over the next 2-5 years. But notice I wrote "potential."
My bird hasn't decided yet.
And yes I also believe the ALPA processes is working well in this TA.
01-02-2016, 11:29 AM
#119
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,202
So, by your logic:
The company is getting nothing, but we get a 13% raise. And that is bad?
The wide body guys have to extend automatically, and ALL pilots, including narrow body pilots (me) get a pay raise. This is bad for narrow body pilots?
You think we should get a new NSNB for a pay raise?
We should give the company a free LOA to fix MOU 22, instead of getting a pay raise out of it, giving away the only leverage we have in this?
The company is getting nothing, but we get a 13% raise. And that is bad?
The wide body guys have to extend automatically, and ALL pilots, including narrow body pilots (me) get a pay raise. This is bad for narrow body pilots?
You think we should get a new NSNB for a pay raise?
We should give the company a free LOA to fix MOU 22, instead of getting a pay raise out of it, giving away the only leverage we have in this?
01-02-2016, 12:10 PM
#120
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
"My only concern was the CAL reference - we need to leave this particular division behind - we are now all one company and one union."
AGREED!
Allen...
OK YES Voter Summary from what I have read here:
1. A bird in the hand...
2. Regular negotiations historically take upwards of two to three years from the exchange of opening letters. Considering there will be no pay raises (3% yes right now) or changes in QOL issues over the next 2 - 3 years the cost of not taking the money now will never be realized in any improvements accomplished in the final contract TA.
3. Should the current TA be voted in another two years will be added onto the above (2) except those years will be paid at higher rates.
4. The future chances of getting major changes in the contract become more risky as the time increases. This applies to both voting NO and starting regular negotiations on time as well as voting YES and delaying the contract.
5. A large portion of the pilot population is retiring in the next three years and will not see any improvement in the contract, pay or QOL.
Allen...
Basically I'm torn between waiting, hoping a NO vote will help the future pilots and taking the additional funds now with a YES vote.
I believe in reality it would be hard pressed to discount into the present (come up with the present value) any future improvements in pay and QOL. If such a number could be determined I also believe it would be difficult to beat the present value of the TA pay raises.
Personally I've never been emotionally attached to this TA as some seem to be and there's no boogey man sitting in the middle of this which might divide us as a pilot group. Sadly there are those (I mention at least two names) who want to divide us over this and almost every subject we face.
What do I think we lose if we vote NO? Cash.
What do I think we lose if we vote YES? Potential contractural changes over the next 2-5 years. But notice I wrote "potential."
My bird hasn't decided yet.
And yes I also believe the ALPA processes is working well in this TA.
AGREED!
Allen...
OK YES Voter Summary from what I have read here:
1. A bird in the hand...
2. Regular negotiations historically take upwards of two to three years from the exchange of opening letters. Considering there will be no pay raises (3% yes right now) or changes in QOL issues over the next 2 - 3 years the cost of not taking the money now will never be realized in any improvements accomplished in the final contract TA.
3. Should the current TA be voted in another two years will be added onto the above (2) except those years will be paid at higher rates.
4. The future chances of getting major changes in the contract become more risky as the time increases. This applies to both voting NO and starting regular negotiations on time as well as voting YES and delaying the contract.
5. A large portion of the pilot population is retiring in the next three years and will not see any improvement in the contract, pay or QOL.
Allen...
Basically I'm torn between waiting, hoping a NO vote will help the future pilots and taking the additional funds now with a YES vote.
I believe in reality it would be hard pressed to discount into the present (come up with the present value) any future improvements in pay and QOL. If such a number could be determined I also believe it would be difficult to beat the present value of the TA pay raises.
Personally I've never been emotionally attached to this TA as some seem to be and there's no boogey man sitting in the middle of this which might divide us as a pilot group. Sadly there are those (I mention at least two names) who want to divide us over this and almost every subject we face.
What do I think we lose if we vote NO? Cash.
What do I think we lose if we vote YES? Potential contractural changes over the next 2-5 years. But notice I wrote "potential."
My bird hasn't decided yet.
And yes I also believe the ALPA processes is working well in this TA.
In a similar retirement position and should just take the money and run. I feel obligated to give back in some crazy kinda of a way for what our prior pilot group did and was able to do collective. You worked for Rick D over that period and know what I mean. I had the pleasure of doing grunt work for a couple of our best field generals and proud of it, Charlie W and Cliff S (RIP). At times they probably should have taken the money and run but didn't because they had a strong sense of obligation to all United pilot, senior and junior.
While the 13% and retirement bump isn't chump change, it's not going to make or break my retirement and it shouldn't have that big an impact for those left behind - considering the downside.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
