Flytolive

UA 700s carry 118, UA 319s carry 128 and the CS100 is listed at 108 in a dual class configuration. The CS100/300s represent a leap in material and engine technology akin to the 787 that pays the same as a 747-400. From a Decision 83 perspective the CS100/300 TA rates are a B-scale.

Regularguy

Scott:

"Artificially compressed timeline. Windows open, windows close. Who held the cards? Who folded?"

This statement is pure hyperbole and brings little to the discussion except to close it.

The TA negotiations went per the instructions of the MEC. They were limited in scope and time and while you and others may feel they did not accomplish the goals set by your representatives, the resulting package is clearly within the original intent and scope.

The only question before the pilots of United Airlines today is; YES I accept what has been negotiated for the next two years or NO I believe the upcoming contract negotiations will buy me more.

You and others who imply the NC could have gotten more at this time are clearly ignoring the limits imputed upon the negotiations which gave us this TA.

I for one do not believe the Company will come crawling back for relief should this TA be turned down. One can say all they want about fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders and other such drivel. The truth is Management has a wide and long rope to run with and they probably won't hang themselves with it.

Regularguy

One other note:

Pay in the "jet age" was originally based on a formula of "gross weight and airspeed." The more it weighed and the faster it went to more pilots got paid. And then along came those who wanted something else.

Flytolive

That's because until composites weight was a proxy for payload. Decision 83 is all about pilot pay being linked to the productivity of the aircraft.

Scott Stoops

How about a full Section 6 in the best negotiating environment ever? No. Of course not. Let's accept a fractured under achieving extentsion that addresses only a small portion of our self professed criteria under a self inflicted shortened timeframe. This is only their second bite at the apple that Heppner proposed giving away for nothing.

svergin

Look at the pay rates in the contract. You can't just make that statement outright and then say a 767-400 should pay the same as a 747-400 when one carries 100+ more people. So you can't be "ok" with that, and then try to say the rate for the CS-100 is too low. That's called hypocrisy.

You are one of the victims. You are always looking for ways to find out you have been cheated again. If the CS-100 paid the same as a 737-900, you'd complain that the 737-900 rates are too low, because certainly that airplane should pay more than a 100 seat airplane.

So you are going to complain no matter what. I hope we never get the airplane at all. That way we won't have to worry about 2,000 more status and category pilots under you in another merger, and in a furlough, the junior pilots can just go back to Express Jet instead of staying on the property.

Flytolive

I didn't. Sorry, but I cannot make much sense out of your posts.

ugleeual

pay rates should be based on a formula that includes the MTOW of the aircraft… plain and simple. We should be negotiating that rate for the formula… then its simple.

svergin

Its easy. Your personal belief about how much an aircraft should pay is not relevant. The CS-100 rate is what it is. If you don't like it, don't bid it.

Regularguy

Scott:

We've both been at UAL for some time and seen our share of the inner workings of the MEC and its chair, so please spare us the Heppner's a bad guy routine. Again all it is more hyperbole and discussion ender.

You did write this, which might need to be addressed: "How about a full Section 6 in the best negotiating environment ever? No. Of course not."

The answer is Full section 6 is not nor ever has been on the table with this whole TA process.

The MEC had the opportunity to just say NO to UAL and yet it chose to engage in the limited scope negotiations which has led to this TA. Don't forget they also had the opportunity to can this TA and yet the majority of the MEC chose to accept and pass it on for a general vote of us pilots.

Whether or not you like Heppner or any of the YES voters on the MEC, the fact is the ALPA method is working, it just seems you don't like the results. In spite of all the rhetoric I can't think of a time when our Union hasn't functioned better.

As they say (too often) it is what it is,