UAL/CAL Arbitrator decision delivered

[Baronman]

Rumor on the streets is United is now planning on pulling the E170 out of EWR starting in Feb. Im guessing the same holds true for IAH as well for the Cr7.

I'm sure we'll see u back once Uni-Cal becomes one company....until then.

Honestly, probably better that you avoid EWR during winter/summer. As you probably know, CAL frequently cancels whole days worth of EWR flying as winter storms approach, and summer cancelations are frequent as well......I'd probably hang myself in the hotel bathroom if I didn't have cancellation pay. I'd be out literally thousands.

 

[GaTechKid]

10 CRJ700s and 9 CRJ200s will be in IAH for February instead of the original 19 700s. The last minute schedule changes that has delayed our monthly bidding by a week was due to aircraft swapping. More 700 flying in traditional UAL hubs and new 200 flying in IAH.

 

[O&M]

O&M, I'll be honest. I'd be much more willing to actually listen to your ramblings if they were not so ridiculous. That said, I really don't care about your personal opinions about the abilities of labor to collectively bargain for improved wages, benefits, and job protections. You won't see any mention about how things "should" be either, so...thanks for the lecture. Those are, in my mind, the basic goals that our respective collective bargaining agents ARE working towards.

You can wrap yourself around the cloak of Give Business Everything while Employees eat poop sandwiches, I - and many others here - prefer to fight aggressively for OUR profession. You, a third party, with no vested interest, can continue to try to explain to us why we are wrong and why we should give in and quit fighting - but none of us will really just wake up one day and buy your pro-business / anti-labor philosophy.

I'm not after hitting short term, quarterly, financial goals. I'm after hitting long term financial stability for myself and family - which may be a foreign concept to you since you're so willing to allow an employer to squeeze you until you can't breath or sustain a lifestyle you've built. Or, then again, maybe you are running a couple companies and want to make sure you can pocket as much of your profits as possible...continuing the excellent class divide that exists around the world. Congratulations sir.

In the end, you continue to preach about the reality of serving a role as management or Capitalist and the rest of us here - who do this for a living - will continue to remind you why we do care a great deal about our ability to sustain the improvement of our PROFESSION.

Surreal, it would seem you and I are talking about two different things. You are speaking of the IDEOLOGY of your PROFESSION. I am speaking about the REALITY of your INDUSTRY. I'll leave the ideology to you, but I'll discuss reality for a moment. You act as though the only involved parties here are management and labor, and that the only obstacle to you getting what you want is a recalcitrant management. Just not true. The true obstacle here is a business model in which operating revenue fails to cover expenses. You and your fellow airline employees don't bring in enough money to pay for yourselves now, so where do you think the money to pay you your desired salary is going to come from? It's not going to come from a contract negotiation. It's going to come from a business model that brings in more money than it spends. So instead of arguing with me about how to cost your airline more money in terms of salary, I think you and your fellow professionals would be better served by an ideology that finds ways to reduce your employers' operating costs. If there is any professional group in the airline business that is capable of finding ways of reducing flight operating costs, it's the pilots. Maybe that should be your ideology.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

Surreal, it would seem you and I are talking about two different things. You are speaking of the IDEOLOGY of your PROFESSION. I am speaking about the REALITY of your INDUSTRY. I'll leave the ideology to you, but I'll discuss reality for a moment. You act as though the only involved parties here are management and labor, and that the only obstacle to you getting what you want is a recalcitrant management. Just not true. The true obstacle here is a business model in which operating revenue fails to cover expenses. You and your fellow airline employees don't bring in enough money to pay for yourselves now, so where do you think the money to pay you your desired salary is going to come from? It's not going to come from a contract negotiation. It's going to come from a business model that brings in more money than it spends. So instead of arguing with me about how to cost your airline more money in terms of salary, I think you and your fellow professionals would be better served by an ideology that finds ways to reduce your employers' operating costs. If there is any professional group in the airline business that is capable of finding ways of reducing flight operating costs, it's the pilots. Maybe that should be your ideology.

I get what you are saying, and if you weren't incredibly biased (as most people on here are) I might even agree with you. But here's the way I look at things.

Its management's job to run the airline to make money. This involves coming up with prices, figuring out what expenses should be, coming up with program to mitigate those expenses (ie, fuel conservation), etc.

Its a nature of the beast, but employees are an expense. So of course management would like to pay us as little as possible because its their job to run the company so that it makes money. That's why we have to look out for ourselves. I agree that in certain (uncontrollable) situations, sometimes the right thing to do is to take concessions to help the company out. Our livelihood depends on the health of each of our companies. But, we also need to look out for ourselves. No matter how pro-management you are, the purpose of having a job is so that you can support yourself and your family. You'd be stupid if you weren't out to get as much as you possibly can. Voluntarily giving things up has a time and a place, but they shouldn't be expected when a) the company put themselves in a certain situation because of mismanagement or b) the company is healthy and just looking to become MORE profitable.

This is where contract negotiations come into play. The workers (who are the cogs that make each company run) try to get what is best for them. The company fights to keep the business side of the company healthy and (in theory) everybody meets somewhere in the middle.

After that, the company is responsible for making money with what they have while abiding by the contract. The workforce is responsible to do the work they are supposed to while abiding by the contract. If one side can't (or in this case doesn't want to) abide by their side of the contract...we have a problem. The Continental management agreed that there would be no 70 seaters doing CO flying. They AGREED to this when they signed the contract. So, until they renegotiate something, they should be expected to abide by what the promised.

What the company is doing is about as reasonable as if the pilots decided that they are entitled to an extra day off each month and just stopped coming to work. The company isn't going to do any favors for the pilots when it comes to the contract, why should the pilots be expected to cave?

 

[kellwolf]

Without ideology, reality will never change, though. If people were just content to take what was given, America would still be a British colony......or we'd all still be vikings. Somewhere, someone said "This isn't right." Then they changed reality to better go with the ideology. Sorta the same thing here. We KNOW management would love cheap-o RJ drivers flying all their domestic routes, and we all know that the scope genie got let too much out of the bottle. So, we have two choices: accept the reality and roll with the punches, or try to make it better match our ideology of how things SHOULD be. I vote for the latter.

 

[B767]

Without ideology, reality will never change, though. If people were just content to take what was given, America would still be a British colony......or we'd all still be vikings. Somewhere, someone said "This isn't right." Then they changed reality to better go with the ideology. Sorta the same thing here. We KNOW management would love cheap-o RJ drivers flying all their domestic routes, and we all know that the scope genie got let too much out of the bottle. So, we have two choices: accept the reality and roll with the punches, or try to make it better match our ideology of how things SHOULD be. I vote for the latter.

Well said!

 

[O&M]

Kellwolf,

The former British colonists, having decided how things SHOULD be, decided to take the risk of forming their own country, which is quite a bit different than just trying to tell someone else how they should run theirs.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Kellwolf,

The former British colonists, having decided how things SHOULD be, decided to take the risk of forming their own country, which is quite a bit different than just trying to tell someone else how they should run theirs.

Your argument is flawed. The "country" of the airline belongs to the employees far more so than it does to the managers. The members of labor will be with the company until the day they retire. The members of management are nothing more than carpet baggers, jumping from one company to the next, stopping off for a few short years at a time. It shouldn't be incumbent upon the employees to just leave when they are being treated poorly by the carpet baggers.

 

[kellwolf]

Kellwolf,

The former British colonists, having decided how things SHOULD be, decided to take the risk of forming their own country, which is quite a bit different than just trying to tell someone else how they should run theirs.

So, you're saying that if someone doesn't like how the operation is run or how they're being treated, rather than try to find a solution that works for all parties, they should just leave? BTW, glad to see I wasn't the only one that got that from your statement. You're still dancing around my main point: ideology has a place in the industry. It's what drives people to make things better rather than just go with the status quo and be miserable. Without that ideology, we wouldn't be looking at a TA between Pinnacle/Mesaba/Colgan that makes life a LOT better for the Pinnacle guys. Your opinion seems to be would should just take whatever offer management gives us, because they know what it takes to stay profitable, keep doing our jobs and be happy we get a paycheck regardless of how we're treated. If we don't like it, there's the door, huh? Believe it or not, unions don't WANT to take it all or put the airline out of business. That's counter productive since if the airline goes under, it doesn't matter if you have the highest pay rate in the industry. We're talking about things like duty days, safety issues, draconian sick policies that intimidate people into flying sick and job protection clauses that keep management from buying cheaper labor to replace us.

The best managers are the ones that lead by example and inspire confidence in their workers. Unfortunately, I don't see any of that at my airline. Management's sick policy is not anywhere close to what our policy is. If a mid-level manager calls in sick, it's not going to cancel a flight and financially impact the airline, so they get more sick days a year than we do. Pretty sure they don't have to bring a doctor's note to their immediate supervisor to prove they really were sick. When it's their day off, unless there was a lot of work that didn't get finished during their work week, it's their day off. Not so for us pilots and the flight attendents. When 5 o'clock rolls around, they leave the office. When we're scheduled to be done, we're biting our fingernails hoping scheduling doesn't have another turn for us to operate. I'd be alright with it if one or maybe two of them could actually explain why morale is so low. They never come to observe daily operations unless it's for some kinda publicity thing (like the CEO loading empty bags onto a belt loader to make it look like he's a man of the people). The managers that report to them are so scared of losing their cushy positions, they'll tell them everything is fine when it's actually swirling around the bowl. By the time it makes it up the ladder what's really going on, it's far too late. I've brought up improvements we could make to streamline the operation and pointed out places where safety could be comrpomised. I've been told "we'll look into it" with no follow up. When I tried to get back in touch, I pretty much either got voicemail or unanswered e-mails. A good management team allows information, feedback and ideas to go both ways up the ladder. That just doesn't happen here.

So, there's two ways we can go with this. I can take my ideas of how things SHOULD be, bury them deep down in side and attempt to be happy I get paid despite the fact I'm treated like crap and I don't know what I'm talking about. OR, I can try to alter the status quo within the framework of the industry to closer match what my ideal work environment would be. It'll never match exactly, but we can get it closer. That's why we negotiated the TA with management. There's plenty of guys that think we could have gotten more, but the company still needs wiggle room to be profitable and move to get new business. I'm cool with that, and I think it's a good thing. But that doesn't mean we have to blindly trust management or just give in to whatever they want.

 

[surreal1221]

Surreal, it would seem you and I are talking about two different things. You are speaking of the IDEOLOGY of your PROFESSION. I am speaking about the REALITY of your INDUSTRY. I'll leave the ideology to you, but I'll discuss reality for a moment. You act as though the only involved parties here are management and labor, and that the only obstacle to you getting what you want is a recalcitrant management. Just not true. The true obstacle here is a business model in which operating revenue fails to cover expenses. You and your fellow airline employees don't bring in enough money to pay for yourselves now, so where do you think the money to pay you your desired salary is going to come from? It's not going to come from a contract negotiation. It's going to come from a business model that brings in more money than it spends. So instead of arguing with me about how to cost your airline more money in terms of salary, I think you and your fellow professionals would be better served by an ideology that finds ways to reduce your employers' operating costs. If there is any professional group in the airline business that is capable of finding ways of reducing flight operating costs, it's the pilots. Maybe that should be your ideology.

If we're talking about two different things...then let's not talk then?

You know where I stand. If you notice I'm not talking the same jive as you, then don't bother trying to come to me with YOUR jive and expect me to come along for the ride.

Rant on and on about how an ideology serves no purpose. But without a shared ideology (not philosophy) a collective group of individuals have little to unite them. That shared ideology, whether within the sphere of politics or labor relations, drives change from the status quo. I'll leave it at that and I'll allow you to wax poetic to everyone else who wants to engage you.

 

[SurferLucas]

Can we change the saying around here from "Oh, Mitch..." to "Oh, O&M..."?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Despite O&M's obvious lack of industry knowledge, there is a valid point buried deep down in there somewhere. It is true that many pilots cling a little to hard to their ideology. Pilots have an incredible knack for passing by a quarter in blind hope that they'll run across a dollar a few feet further up the sidewalk. The smarter move is almost always to take the quarter and keep working on getting that dollar. Bargaining opportunities present themselves over and over again, and if you refuse to make a deal because it isn't the perfect deal, then you'll probably end up with far less money in the end. Yes, we all know what we deserve for this job, but you aren't going to get something just because you deserve it. Clinching your fists, pounding your feet, and screaming at the top of your lungs that it isn't fair isn't going to get you anywhere, and that's exactly what a lot of guys do who cling a little bit too much to their ideology. Pragmatism has its place, and it's usually smarter to be pragmatic than to be ideological. Make a decision because it's the logical thing to do, not because it fits with your ideology.

 

[SteveC]

...It is true that many pilots cling a little to hard to their ideology. ...Yes, we all know what we deserve for this job, but you aren't going to get something just because you deserve it. Clinching your fists, pounding your feet, and screaming at the top of your lungs that it isn't fair isn't going to get you anywhere, and that's exactly what a lot of guys do who cling a little bit too much to their ideology. Pragmatism has its place, and it's usually smarter to be pragmatic than to be ideological. Make a decision because it's the logical thing to do, not because it fits with your ideology.

I'm going to make a doctor appointment ASAP.

I must be sick if I agree with you as much as I do on this post.

 

[Bumblebee]

Clinching your fists, pounding your feet, and screaming at the top of your lungs that it isn't fair isn't going to get you anywhere, and that's exactly what a lot of guys do who cling a little bit too much to their ideology. Pragmatism has its place, and it's usually smarter to be pragmatic than to be ideological.

Where is Todd and what have you done with him?

This is a spot on observation by the way Todd, good work. It is important to realize that ten yards in the direction of your ultimate goal is better than stagnation while waiting for the touchdown pass...


Oh! ......and excellent self diagnosis Steve, I'm heading for the doc to get a check up now as well, I feel a little dizzy.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I think I'm mellowing in my "old age." It's a bit disturbing, actually.

 

[SteveC]

I think I'm mellowing in my "old age." It's a bit disturbing, actually.

Welcome to the club.

 

[kellwolf]

This is a spot on observation by the way Todd, good work. It is important to realize that ten yards in the direction of your ultimate goal is better than stagnation while waiting for the touchdown pass...

This is true, but you also have to take it in perspective with the other teams on the field. TA1 at Pinnacle was a prime example. Sure, it would get us about 3 yards closer to the goal, but the other teams were already 11 yards ahead of us. It didn't even put us even with them on most aspects, and we actually took a sack on some issues (I think I may be taking the metaphor too far now). So, in that case it was better to send it back and hope for a deeper pass to get us further down the field. I'd say so far, it's worked out well. Took over a year to get something, but the new TA is FAR better than what we would have had under TA1.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Obviously I don't know TA1 or TA2 as well as you do, so my analysis may be flawed, but based on what I know of TA1 and your current situation, I wouldn't necessarily agree. You say that TA1 got you 3 yards closer to the goal, so I assume that you believe TA1 was an improvement over current book, just not a big enough improvement. If that's the case, then I would submit your bargaining position would have been improved with TA1 ratified, because management's situation wouldn't have changed in having to bargain a JCBA with all three pilot groups. The end result would be the same (or maybe better) JCBA, while having a better contract while you wait for the JCBA to be done.

 

[kellwolf]

Obviously I don't know TA1 or TA2 as well as you do, so my analysis may be flawed, but based on what I know of TA1 and your current situation, I wouldn't necessarily agree. You say that TA1 got you 3 yards closer to the goal, so I assume that you believe TA1 was an improvement over current book, just not a big enough improvement. If that's the case, then I would submit your bargaining position would have been improved with TA1 ratified, because management's situation wouldn't have changed in having to bargain a JCBA with all three pilot groups. The end result would be the same (or maybe better) JCBA, while having a better contract while you wait for the JCBA to be done.

3 yards closer in some ways (pay, scope and a few other things) and a loss of yards in others (reserve rules, QoL hits and a total loss of vacation slide). The losses outweighted the gains for me on TA1, and I felt I was better off under a 10 year old agreement than what the company was offering.

A lot of the stuff in the current JCBA came from either TA1 or stuff that was negotiated as improvements from TA1 in addition to current XJ book and input from Colgan. I don't think we would have gotten anything better in a JCBA if TA1 had been ratified. It was being used as a "jumping off point" anyway. And I don't think TA1 would qualify as a "better contract" for us reserve guys. I'd still be on reserve the whole time, there were terrible loop holes that DW was likely salivating over, I didn't feel like being a grievance guinea pig and my overall QoL would have been WORSE on reserve under TA1. That's the whole reason I voted "no" on it. I literally felt sick after reading Section 25 of that thing. Made me wonder if the people negotiating it even gave a damn about reserves or if they were still carrying the "Reserve is only gonna be for a few months" philosophy. Here I am 3 years later to say reserve is no longer just a few months, so why were we okay with reserve rules that were acting like it was a short term thing? Although, a lot of the guys that kept telling me to get over it and pay my dues whenever I brought that stuff up about TA1 might be singing a different tune now that a LOT of those mid to lower high seniority guys might be looking at reserve in MEM after they move 50 guys out.......

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

If that's the case, then I can understand. I voted "no" on our TA1 almost four years ago because I believed I would be better off under our 2001 contract than under that TA (scope issues, mainly), and I don't regret that vote one bit. If it's actually an improvement, though, just not a big enough improvement, then it's a different calculation.