Self funding TA?
01-02-2016, 03:30 PM
#121
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
REGULARGY coined "always a no voter".
I am one of those. I have never voted yes at United for anything the union put in front of me, including C2000.
This TA is such a no brainer, even I can't think of a reason to vote no.
OLDMAKO put up a list of reasons we have leverage on another thread. Some of them, I hadn't thought of. It was the only list of reasons that actually made me think of voting no. But, about 2.3 seconds later, I was a yes vote, again.
MOP? I don't get your logic.
Maybe I picked the wrong day to stop smoking crack, or maybe you did.
I am one of those. I have never voted yes at United for anything the union put in front of me, including C2000.
This TA is such a no brainer, even I can't think of a reason to vote no.
OLDMAKO put up a list of reasons we have leverage on another thread. Some of them, I hadn't thought of. It was the only list of reasons that actually made me think of voting no. But, about 2.3 seconds later, I was a yes vote, again.
MOP? I don't get your logic.
Maybe I picked the wrong day to stop smoking crack, or maybe you did.
01-02-2016, 03:36 PM
#122
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,202
REGULARGY coined "always a no voter".
I am one of those. I have never voted yes at United for anything the union put in front of me, including C2000.
This TA is such a no brainer, even I can't think of a reason to vote no.
OLDMAKO put up a list of reasons we have leverage on another thread. Some of them, I hadn't thought of. It was the only list of reasons that actually made me think of voting no. But, about 2.3 seconds later, I was a yes vote, again.
MOP? I don't get your logic.
Maybe I picked the wrong day to stop smoking crack, or maybe you did.
I am one of those. I have never voted yes at United for anything the union put in front of me, including C2000.
This TA is such a no brainer, even I can't think of a reason to vote no.
OLDMAKO put up a list of reasons we have leverage on another thread. Some of them, I hadn't thought of. It was the only list of reasons that actually made me think of voting no. But, about 2.3 seconds later, I was a yes vote, again.
MOP? I don't get your logic.
Maybe I picked the wrong day to stop smoking crack, or maybe you did.
Respond to my questions, make me a yes voter.
01-02-2016, 04:03 PM
#123
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: 777 CA
Posts: 1,049
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!
Don't tell me you are going to fix something then don't do it!
01-02-2016, 04:12 PM
#124
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,202
That has already been explained on here and in the ALPA emails and videos. The list of items that were going to be discussed was generated by the company and agreed to by ALPA. NC was given direction on what to discuss. The company wanted Reserve relief, ALPA wanted gains. Never would give, so no changes were made. Not sure what the fixation on that is. We didn't budge on the relief the company wanted for reserves. Sounds like a win to me. We didn't have to sacrifice reserves for 13%.
So it's ok to only discuss 5 items, not sections, but items of a 25 section 500 page document that controls our lives and just say well no go but here's some cash?
Would you hire a contractor to fix five things in your house then have him not fix 2 things only do half of the bathroom and sweep your floors then say well we tried here's some cash?
01-02-2016, 07:11 PM
#125
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
They should have walked away at that point just like they promised they would.
So it's ok to only discuss 5 items, not sections, but items of a 25 section 500 page document that controls our lives and just say well no go but here's some cash?
Would you hire a contractor to fix five things in your house then have him not fix 2 things only do half of the bathroom and sweep your floors then say well we tried here's some cash?
So it's ok to only discuss 5 items, not sections, but items of a 25 section 500 page document that controls our lives and just say well no go but here's some cash?
Would you hire a contractor to fix five things in your house then have him not fix 2 things only do half of the bathroom and sweep your floors then say well we tried here's some cash?
The difference, is we are not hiring the contractor. The company is hiring us. The company wanted to discuss 5 things, we got 3 wins, 1 tie, and 1 no contest (reserve). For that, we get extra money.
All of which, we are were not entitled to for another year, assuming a miracle happens and the Section 6 was finished on time.
Santa just said here's 13%, 1 year early. Oh, and before he leaves, we get 3 more presents. All of which, we not entitled to.
It is all free. No strings. The wide body guys had to "give", but they also got a lot more add pay, automatically. I would call that tie.
We didn't pay them, to discuss 5 things, they paid us.
01-02-2016, 08:20 PM
#126
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Captain
Posts: 1,561
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.
I did get the sarcasism
The UAL v CAL will take 30-40 years to go away
See : Republic v NWA , DL v Western and DL v NWA
Unfortunately
01-03-2016, 03:18 PM
#127
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,266
I agree with Probe, it is not accurate to say the CS-100 is a B-scale.
737-700
128 typical 2 class
Mtow 154.5
$235.76
Cs100
108 typical 2 class (15.7% less)
Mtow 121(21.7% less)
$185.19 (21.5% less)
It seems the pay rates for the CS-100 match up perfectly with a lower MTOW.
However if seats are taken into account, one could say the rates are about 6% less than they should be.
But "the pay for the CS-100 is 6% low" is much less inflammatory and fun to say than " the CS-100 is the new B scale"
737-700
128 typical 2 class
Mtow 154.5
$235.76
Cs100
108 typical 2 class (15.7% less)
Mtow 121(21.7% less)
$185.19 (21.5% less)
It seems the pay rates for the CS-100 match up perfectly with a lower MTOW.
However if seats are taken into account, one could say the rates are about 6% less than they should be.
But "the pay for the CS-100 is 6% low" is much less inflammatory and fun to say than " the CS-100 is the new B scale"
01-04-2016, 03:53 AM
#128
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
You're choosing an aircraft (the 500) that will never be flown again by United pilots; the only one on that payband where the numbers will work in your favor.
If you really want to do an apples to apples comparison, the CS-100 should be compared with the EMB195, EMB190 and CRJ900 since the cabin space and market niche are similar. Is it properly paybanded? I would argue yes, when compared against those aircraft.
I have a lot of heartburn about these attacks on the CS-100. We've had scope creep/mainline retreat for more than a decade and we are finally at a point where we can end the mainline retreat by offering the company a number of options for NSNB aircraft with a pay rate for each option.
This sudden concern that the CS-100 rate is somehow B scale (it's not B scale; that argument requires quite a bit of linguistic gymnastics to mislabel it B scale) is just more politics in an effort to torpedo the TA. A B Scale is where employees for the same company are working under different pay rates for the same seat/equipment/longevity. If one were to adopt this flawed definition of B scale, then the 737-700, A319, and CS300 are B scale because they pay less than the 737-500 when adjusted for whatever narrow measure you'd like to use.
I just can't believe that the NO crowd is using this as an excuse to vote no. We finally have a chance to stop mainline retreat and now you guys want to fumble the ball. Do what Joe Pisarcik should have done and take a knee on the CS100 pay rate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlmUw2zcc8Q
01-04-2016, 04:47 AM
#129
Need More Callouts
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Unbridled Enthusiasm
Posts: 2,143
Wrong.
The "strings" are delaying our ability to negotiate in what is unarguably the very best economic cycle we'll ever see. Postponing Section 6 openers to fix the swiss cheese holes in our contract amounts to a gigantic concession.
Free indeed.
The "strings" are delaying our ability to negotiate in what is unarguably the very best economic cycle we'll ever see. Postponing Section 6 openers to fix the swiss cheese holes in our contract amounts to a gigantic concession.
Free indeed.
01-04-2016, 05:41 AM
#130
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
I keep hearing this, but all this phenomenal negotiating environment has produced is 2 failed TA's (DAL and SWA), no TA after several years in section 6 (UPS), and 1 contract that contained several give backs (FEDEX).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
