MEC just screwed me out of $1500
10-22-2016, 08:16 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
This from Council 11. Fairly concise and to the point. Some sections boldened for the opacus.
------------------------------------
PTC Plus-Up
Background: PTC Plus-Up is an ad hoc program that was unilaterally implemented by the Company and is NOT part of our contract. The program provides an enticement for pilots to pick up flying in certain situations. Since the mechanics of this program have been discussed in previous communications we will not re-hash those details here. PTC Plus-Up could potentially be a good deal for those who knew about it and could take advantage of it. Unfortunately, in spite of our requests, the company refused to communicate this policy to the pilot group leaving only those “in the know” able to take advantage of it. Eventually, as word started to get around about this policy, pilots who had “flown for free” along with those who had just never heard about it were justifiably upset.
The main issue here is the inequitable treatment of pilots. We cannot allow management to pick and choose among us. This should have been abundantly clear to management after the recent grievance decision against them. The decision by a senior manager at United to implement a unilateral pay policy during the merger cost the company $32 million! This is the largest monetary award in ALPA’s history.
Is your LEC against it? No, not at all. We recognize that PTC Plus-Up was a good deal for those who can take advantage of it. Your LEC (and the entire MEC) is opposed to maintaining an ad hoc program that requires pilot action to participate. In its current form PTC Plus-Up is not automatically given to everyone who is eligible. Only pilots who are aware of the program and remember to send an email or make a call to the company get the benefit. This sort of back-room deal is inappropriate. We operate under the UPA and pilots should not be required to take an action to be paid properly.
Why is it being terminated? The MEC has been trying to fix this situation for months. We provided guidance for our negotiators to capture the details of this program in an LOA so it would be preserved and all pilots who were eligible would receive the proper payment. Our negotiators developed a plan that would have properly captured all the details in an LOA. It is a relatively simple calculation. Unfortunately, the company was unwilling to accept our proposed solution. They proposed an alternate solution that was completely unacceptable and actually decreased the value of their current “Plus-Up” scheme. After months of good faith efforts on our part, we are at an impasse and the MEC unanimously demanded termination of the program.
What’s next? It’s hard to say what the company’s future position will be. However, make no mistake, while this program benefits some pilots, it is also highly beneficial to the company (if it wasn’t they wouldn’t have been doing it). It is surprising to us and unfortunate that the company was unwilling to simply capture how the plan currently works in an LOA. We were not seeking anything more than what was being offered in the current program. We are hopeful that the company will see that their unwillingness to memorialize the details of their current program in a reasonable LOA is a mistake. This failure is especially disheartening in our current environment where the company seems to be trying to repair years of poor labor relations. Your LEC officers and the rest of the MEC are standing by to approve a reasonable PTC Plus-Up LOA that benefits ALL the pilots of United Airlines.
Questions regarding why management refused to memorialize their policy in our contract should be directed to the company. Please contact [email protected]
------------------------------------
PTC Plus-Up
Background: PTC Plus-Up is an ad hoc program that was unilaterally implemented by the Company and is NOT part of our contract. The program provides an enticement for pilots to pick up flying in certain situations. Since the mechanics of this program have been discussed in previous communications we will not re-hash those details here. PTC Plus-Up could potentially be a good deal for those who knew about it and could take advantage of it. Unfortunately, in spite of our requests, the company refused to communicate this policy to the pilot group leaving only those “in the know” able to take advantage of it. Eventually, as word started to get around about this policy, pilots who had “flown for free” along with those who had just never heard about it were justifiably upset.
The main issue here is the inequitable treatment of pilots. We cannot allow management to pick and choose among us. This should have been abundantly clear to management after the recent grievance decision against them. The decision by a senior manager at United to implement a unilateral pay policy during the merger cost the company $32 million! This is the largest monetary award in ALPA’s history.
Is your LEC against it? No, not at all. We recognize that PTC Plus-Up was a good deal for those who can take advantage of it. Your LEC (and the entire MEC) is opposed to maintaining an ad hoc program that requires pilot action to participate. In its current form PTC Plus-Up is not automatically given to everyone who is eligible. Only pilots who are aware of the program and remember to send an email or make a call to the company get the benefit. This sort of back-room deal is inappropriate. We operate under the UPA and pilots should not be required to take an action to be paid properly.
Why is it being terminated? The MEC has been trying to fix this situation for months. We provided guidance for our negotiators to capture the details of this program in an LOA so it would be preserved and all pilots who were eligible would receive the proper payment. Our negotiators developed a plan that would have properly captured all the details in an LOA. It is a relatively simple calculation. Unfortunately, the company was unwilling to accept our proposed solution. They proposed an alternate solution that was completely unacceptable and actually decreased the value of their current “Plus-Up” scheme. After months of good faith efforts on our part, we are at an impasse and the MEC unanimously demanded termination of the program.
What’s next? It’s hard to say what the company’s future position will be. However, make no mistake, while this program benefits some pilots, it is also highly beneficial to the company (if it wasn’t they wouldn’t have been doing it). It is surprising to us and unfortunate that the company was unwilling to simply capture how the plan currently works in an LOA. We were not seeking anything more than what was being offered in the current program. We are hopeful that the company will see that their unwillingness to memorialize the details of their current program in a reasonable LOA is a mistake. This failure is especially disheartening in our current environment where the company seems to be trying to repair years of poor labor relations. Your LEC officers and the rest of the MEC are standing by to approve a reasonable PTC Plus-Up LOA that benefits ALL the pilots of United Airlines.
Questions regarding why management refused to memorialize their policy in our contract should be directed to the company. Please contact [email protected]
Last edited by oldmako; 10-22-2016 at 08:45 AM.
10-22-2016, 08:50 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,173
What should have happened was keep November as status quo, December becomes the effective date. We then press the company to recoup the $$ due those who did pick up trips in vacation months and not take advantage of the e-mail notification. At the same time demand the company correct this contractually and codify the process as it was intended to be. December rolls around and if its not fixed, bid differently if you have vacation and want to pick-up more open time or don't and enjoy the extra pay and time off, your choice.
I'm glad that many of you take advantage of the time off but there are probably just as many on here who use it to make extra coin at the company's expense. I happen to do that every year in November to help pay for my super-sized families Xmas expenses so I guess its hard candy for me this year.
This was handled poorly by the MEC and there is most definitely reason to complain. For the glass houses crowd try not impose what you think is fair on the rest of us who choose to do it differently. This gesture of thumbing ones nose at management will do absolutely nothing to our staffing and if not fixed in the near future will probably result in more Pilots dumping their vacations into a 401k. Net result of that will probably reduce our staffing even further having the complete opposite effect much to managements delight.
I'm glad that many of you take advantage of the time off but there are probably just as many on here who use it to make extra coin at the company's expense. I happen to do that every year in November to help pay for my super-sized families Xmas expenses so I guess its hard candy for me this year.
This was handled poorly by the MEC and there is most definitely reason to complain. For the glass houses crowd try not impose what you think is fair on the rest of us who choose to do it differently. This gesture of thumbing ones nose at management will do absolutely nothing to our staffing and if not fixed in the near future will probably result in more Pilots dumping their vacations into a 401k. Net result of that will probably reduce our staffing even further having the complete opposite effect much to managements delight.
10-22-2016, 05:31 PM
#53
New Hire
Joined APC: Oct 2016
Posts: 3
This from Council 11. Fairly concise and to the point. Some sections boldened for the opacus.
------------------------------------
PTC Plus-Up
Background: PTC Plus-Up is an ad hoc program that was unilaterally implemented by the Company and is NOT part of our contract. Unfortunately, in spite of our requests, the company refused to communicate this policy to the pilot group leaving only those “in the know” able to take advantage of it.
------------------------------------
PTC Plus-Up
Background: PTC Plus-Up is an ad hoc program that was unilaterally implemented by the Company and is NOT part of our contract. Unfortunately, in spite of our requests, the company refused to communicate this policy to the pilot group leaving only those “in the know” able to take advantage of it.
. In its current form PTC Plus-Up is not automatically given to everyone who is eligible. Only pilots who are aware of the program and remember to send an email or make a call to the company get the benefit. This sort of back-room deal is inappropriate. We operate under the UPA and pilots should not be required to take an action to be paid properly.
By this standard the middle seat deadhead pay should have been shut down long ago... OKAY MEC here's yur chance. Pound your chest and shut this down too. My fingers are really tired of sending an email every few months to pick up a few hundred bucks more. It jest aint fair
Why is it being terminated? The MEC has been trying to fix this situation for months.... Unfortunately, the company was unwilling to accept our proposed solution. They proposed an alternate solution that was completely unacceptable and actually decreased the value of their current “Plus-Up” scheme. After months of good faith efforts on our part, we are at an impasse and the MEC unanimously demanded termination of the program.
Hmmm. So please- share with us what that LOA said that was so disgusting to the company they would rather loose pilots pick ups.. than sign it.
Questions regarding why management refused to memorialize their policy in our contract should be directed to the company. Please contact [email protected]
Rather than rely on some company management type to tell us what the real deal was. The union wants us to contact the company negotiators directly? What did the rejected LOA say, shouldn't that be the job of the union- if what they claim it says is true? Just post the proposed LOA verbatim instead of "characterizations.
There's an old saying about war.... Truth is the first casualty
Last edited by Birdoggy; 10-22-2016 at 05:35 PM. Reason: left out something
10-22-2016, 05:55 PM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
It is amazing how many pilots are anxious to believe the worst about their union especially in the midst of enormous compensation increases. Some pilots should just admit to themselves that they resent being union members and would prefer being independent contractors. To bad we can't let a few see how relatively little they would make if that was the case.
10-22-2016, 06:08 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
United MEC Update
End to PTC Plus-Up Policy
As briefed earlier this week and noted on CCS, the Flight Operations “PTC Plus-Up Policy” which was being administered in violation of the United Pilot Agreement (UPA) will terminate in November. We have received many questions regarding the MEC decision, so we wanted to explain the history, the reasoning behind it, and why this action was necessary to protect our contract.
Background
Over the last several months the MEC began receiving reports that some lineholders had been able to get additional pay in vacation months by emailing the company and requesting it. To further complicate matters, the MEC Compensation Committee has been tracking a known IT error which erroneously inflates pilots CCS Pay Register Screens when picking up additional flying during a vacation month. The MEC asked the Negotiating Committee to research the issue and brief them at the July MEC meeting.
The MEC was briefed on the Company policy explained to you in previous communications as the “PTC Plus-Up Policy.” This policy was designed by the Company as an incentive to pick up open time during a vacation month, but only applied to pilots in categories where the line average was above 70. Disparate treatment of pilots like this is unacceptable.
The MEC discussed the issue at length, including input from its attorneys, SSC, Grievance, and Negotiating Committees. The primary concerns were that the policy was in violation of the UPA, it was being applied inconsistently, and then only to pilots who specifically contacted the Company and requested a pay adjustment.
The MEC always requires that any Company policy be applied fairly, uniformly and consistently, which was not being done with PTC Plus Up. We reject any added requirement for pilots to become pay experts or email the Company to ask for pay adjustments. Also, because this was a policy (versus a UPA provision), if the Company made an error applying it pilots may have no recourse or ability to file a grievance.
Most importantly, the MEC was concerned that the risk of ignoring any violation of the UPA, even one in our favor, sets a dangerous precedent for future disputes. If we allow the Company to ignore the contract today, it makes it harder to enforce it in the future.
To remove this risk, the MEC directed the Negotiating Committee to attempt to secure a Letter of Agreement with the company that would codify the policy as part of the contract, and eliminate the requirement for pilots to analyze their pay for Plus-Up accuracy and email requests for pay corrections. After the Company agreed to enter into these negotiations, the MEC directed the policy be widely communicate to all pilots so that it would at least be applied consistently in the interim.
Unfortunately, the Company proved unwilling to codify the policy in a letter of agreement. They expressed a number of reasons for this refusal, and none of their counterproposals were acceptable to the MEC.
The Company’s final proposal was to record all of the Plus-up Pay from all pilots, over the course of one year, and distribute it among all pilots based on their awarded vacation. This would mean some pilots would “fly for free” while others had extra time off and received a windfall.
This was not acceptable to the MEC, nor would it be acceptable to you.
Reasoning behind the MEC decision
Faced with this situation, the MEC was left with no choice but to reject the Company’s final proposal and demand that they comply with the UPA.
To reach compliance, the Company indicated their intent to apply the policy to trades affecting the current (October) Bid period, but not beyond. We recognize the possibility that some pilots who have vacation may have bid differently in November had they known this policy would be terminated, but allowing the violation to continue another bid period further exposes us to the risks outlined above.
Until the Company is willing to agree to pay all pilots uniformly, and codify that agreement in a LOA, the MEC’s demand to cease and desist violating the United Pilot Agreement is the proper course of action for the long-term protection of our contract.
End to PTC Plus-Up Policy
As briefed earlier this week and noted on CCS, the Flight Operations “PTC Plus-Up Policy” which was being administered in violation of the United Pilot Agreement (UPA) will terminate in November. We have received many questions regarding the MEC decision, so we wanted to explain the history, the reasoning behind it, and why this action was necessary to protect our contract.
Background
Over the last several months the MEC began receiving reports that some lineholders had been able to get additional pay in vacation months by emailing the company and requesting it. To further complicate matters, the MEC Compensation Committee has been tracking a known IT error which erroneously inflates pilots CCS Pay Register Screens when picking up additional flying during a vacation month. The MEC asked the Negotiating Committee to research the issue and brief them at the July MEC meeting.
The MEC was briefed on the Company policy explained to you in previous communications as the “PTC Plus-Up Policy.” This policy was designed by the Company as an incentive to pick up open time during a vacation month, but only applied to pilots in categories where the line average was above 70. Disparate treatment of pilots like this is unacceptable.
The MEC discussed the issue at length, including input from its attorneys, SSC, Grievance, and Negotiating Committees. The primary concerns were that the policy was in violation of the UPA, it was being applied inconsistently, and then only to pilots who specifically contacted the Company and requested a pay adjustment.
The MEC always requires that any Company policy be applied fairly, uniformly and consistently, which was not being done with PTC Plus Up. We reject any added requirement for pilots to become pay experts or email the Company to ask for pay adjustments. Also, because this was a policy (versus a UPA provision), if the Company made an error applying it pilots may have no recourse or ability to file a grievance.
Most importantly, the MEC was concerned that the risk of ignoring any violation of the UPA, even one in our favor, sets a dangerous precedent for future disputes. If we allow the Company to ignore the contract today, it makes it harder to enforce it in the future.
To remove this risk, the MEC directed the Negotiating Committee to attempt to secure a Letter of Agreement with the company that would codify the policy as part of the contract, and eliminate the requirement for pilots to analyze their pay for Plus-Up accuracy and email requests for pay corrections. After the Company agreed to enter into these negotiations, the MEC directed the policy be widely communicate to all pilots so that it would at least be applied consistently in the interim.
Unfortunately, the Company proved unwilling to codify the policy in a letter of agreement. They expressed a number of reasons for this refusal, and none of their counterproposals were acceptable to the MEC.
The Company’s final proposal was to record all of the Plus-up Pay from all pilots, over the course of one year, and distribute it among all pilots based on their awarded vacation. This would mean some pilots would “fly for free” while others had extra time off and received a windfall.
This was not acceptable to the MEC, nor would it be acceptable to you.
Reasoning behind the MEC decision
Faced with this situation, the MEC was left with no choice but to reject the Company’s final proposal and demand that they comply with the UPA.
To reach compliance, the Company indicated their intent to apply the policy to trades affecting the current (October) Bid period, but not beyond. We recognize the possibility that some pilots who have vacation may have bid differently in November had they known this policy would be terminated, but allowing the violation to continue another bid period further exposes us to the risks outlined above.
Until the Company is willing to agree to pay all pilots uniformly, and codify that agreement in a LOA, the MEC’s demand to cease and desist violating the United Pilot Agreement is the proper course of action for the long-term protection of our contract.
10-23-2016, 06:02 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
"The Company’s final proposal was to record all of the Plus-up Pay from all pilots, over the course of one year, and distribute it among all pilots based on their awarded vacation. This would mean some pilots would “fly for free” while others had extra time off and received a windfall."
10-23-2016, 11:11 AM
#58
New Hire
Joined APC: Oct 2016
Posts: 3
This from Council 11. Fairly concise and to the point. Some sections boldened for the opacus.
------------------------------------
PTC Plus-Up...............
Questions regarding why management refused to memorialize their policy in our contract should be directed to the company. Please contact [email protected]
------------------------------------
PTC Plus-Up...............
Questions regarding why management refused to memorialize their policy in our contract should be directed to the company. Please contact [email protected]
I'm just a little skeptical when it comes having one side or the other "explain", what the deal was that wasn't. But, since the union has directed the pilots to communicate directly with the company on the negotiation, maybe I will.
Maybe they will supply the straight dope.
Because reading the MEC statement sounds like they just wanted the current policy in an LOA... simple, but then they go on and talk about automatic,,, uniformity, etc. All kinda vague stuff. OH, the part about analyzing my pay for accuracy? I do that every month. Who doesn't
I have never heard anyone complain about the center seat deadhead policy. If the union is demanding something more than that on this, I think we should know the details, since it will cost some people money in their vacation months- or at least remove the ability to make more.
Last edited by Birdoggy; 10-23-2016 at 11:27 AM.
10-23-2016, 11:19 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
This is no exception.
We get it. In just two posts you have made it quite obvious that you trust the company more than our union. It is an all too common malady within our ranks.
We get it. In just two posts you have made it quite obvious that you trust the company more than our union. It is an all too common malady within our ranks.
10-23-2016, 12:09 PM
#60
New Hire
Joined APC: Oct 2016
Posts: 3
I'll shake hands with most anyone, but I've learned to check myself afterward.
No need to make this personal. Some people are always looking for fight.
Are you someone's ex-wife?
Maybe you are suffering from ASCH syndrome.
Last edited by Birdoggy; 10-23-2016 at 12:12 PM. Reason: syntax
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
