UCH and Pilots reach Tentative Agreement
Nov 13, 2012, 3:03 pm
#17
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Programs: MYOB
Posts: 1,304
Nov 13, 2012, 4:22 pm
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,704
Nov 13, 2012, 5:12 pm
#19
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: PDX
Programs: DL DM, AS MVP 100K, Amtrak peon, Colbert Lifetime Platinum
Posts: 4,534
This would probably just marginally benefit the pilots, but as a customer I sure wish scope clause would include limiting small-capacity long-distance flying (i.e. no 50-seaters on 900-mile+ or 70-seaters on 1,500-mile+ routes).
Nov 13, 2012, 5:42 pm
#20
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Redwood City, CA USA (SFO/SJC)
Programs: 1K 2010, 1P in 2011, Plat for 2012,13,14,15 & 2016. Gold in 17 & 18, Plat since
Posts: 8,826
I just got notification that this thing was approved by both CO and UA MECs. I'm on a very short layover (and nothing in the TA about fixing that) so I just did a quick look at the summary.
I have to say that it doesn't look good at all. Scope is weak, there are more givebacks than improvements, and the pay increases are an insult. I was an Airbus captain when we got the cuts in '03 and '04. The 'Bus took the largest % hit-48%. Now as a 757/767 captain, I'm seeing the smallest raise. Maybe since the 75s are going away and the 320/737 will be the same pay, I'll only loose seniority. Never thought I'd be looking kindly upon the lesser of two evils.
The scope is #1 for me even though I'll be gone before the effects are felt among the pilots, but I can't in good conscience vote in favor of it. Same with retirement, insurance, and work rules. Pay is also a slap in the face.
I'm going to try and keep an open mind though, and listen to our MEC try and pitch this, but I suspect I'll be watching them trying to put lipstick on a pig.
More to follow, I'm sure.
FAB
I have to say that it doesn't look good at all. Scope is weak, there are more givebacks than improvements, and the pay increases are an insult. I was an Airbus captain when we got the cuts in '03 and '04. The 'Bus took the largest % hit-48%. Now as a 757/767 captain, I'm seeing the smallest raise. Maybe since the 75s are going away and the 320/737 will be the same pay, I'll only loose seniority. Never thought I'd be looking kindly upon the lesser of two evils.
The scope is #1 for me even though I'll be gone before the effects are felt among the pilots, but I can't in good conscience vote in favor of it. Same with retirement, insurance, and work rules. Pay is also a slap in the face.
I'm going to try and keep an open mind though, and listen to our MEC try and pitch this, but I suspect I'll be watching them trying to put lipstick on a pig.
More to follow, I'm sure.
FAB
Nov 13, 2012, 6:03 pm
#21
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IAH
Programs: UA/CO-GS/PPlat,AA-Gold,SPG-Plat,Hilton-Diamond,Marriott-Plat,Hertz-Pres_Circe
Posts: 824
Like an ER145 from IAH to destinations in Canada?
Nov 13, 2012, 6:34 pm
#22
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 290 through FL390
Posts: 1,687
True, but had you stayed on the bus, the 320s and the 319s got the biggest raises. Because you moved up on equipment to a higher paying bird (basicly a voluntary promotion to equipent that paid more and tok a smaller relativecut) is why the discrapancy. Had you stayed on the equipment that took the biggest cut, you would be getting the biggest (relative, not absolute) raise. Instead you moved up to a different job that pad more and took a smaller relative cut.
The raises are rates based on metal currently bid by you to fly, not based on metal you flew on the effective date of your current (old) recessionary contract.
Noone can fault you for wanting to move up equipment, but in so doing, you moved to that equipment pay scale, not your previous equipment pay scale, which on this TA got a larger increase, in line with the larger cut it took.
The raises are rates based on metal currently bid by you to fly, not based on metal you flew on the effective date of your current (old) recessionary contract.
Noone can fault you for wanting to move up equipment, but in so doing, you moved to that equipment pay scale, not your previous equipment pay scale, which on this TA got a larger increase, in line with the larger cut it took.
True, but as you alluded to, it is a natural progression to move up in status and equipment over one's career. Were that not the case, I'd still be an Airbus first officer, given that all the flight engineers' positions and the F/O positions on the 727, 737-200, 737-300, DC-8, and DC-10 have gone away.
Now, the lowest I can legally go is back to Airbus captain, and the TA pay for that is the same as the 757-200 if this TA is approved by the pilots. That's theoretical though, because there will be no downbidding for a while.
FAB
• New small narrowbody aircraft – we fly them.
• 90 percent of feeder flying must be to/from specific airports
• 80 percent of feeder flying must be less than 900 statute miles
• Maximum 5 percent feeder hub-to-hub
• Must maintain 90 percent of Company block hours to Joint Venture countries
• International joint venture rules require UA “metal in the market” (no Aer Lingus type agreements)
FAB
Last edited by iluv2fly; Nov 13, 2012 at 6:43 pm Reason: merge
Nov 13, 2012, 6:47 pm
#23
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 290 through FL390
Posts: 1,687
Yes, but we haven't had it broken down into meaningful language quite yet. It's in contractual language only at this point, and I frankly need a translation. It looks to be similar to what we've had on and off over the past 8 years, which is to say, scraps.
FAB
FAB
Nov 13, 2012, 7:13 pm
#25
Moderator: United Airlines
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA LT Plat 2MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 67,051
the same US that is likely to merge with AA??
Nov 13, 2012, 8:04 pm
#27
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston, MA (BOS)
Programs: AA PLT Pro 2MM, DL Gold, UA Silver, Marriott Ambassador + LT Plat, COFC Venture X, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 5,587
Take a look at the departures board next time you are at DEN, IAD, or ORD a substantial number of the domestic flying is Express and even on long flights like CLE-DEN, ATL-DEN, ORD-SLC, etc
Nov 13, 2012, 8:47 pm
#28
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: PDX
Programs: DL DM, AS MVP 100K, Amtrak peon, Colbert Lifetime Platinum
Posts: 4,534
Here are a few provisions in the scope language.
• New small narrowbody aircraft – we fly them.
• 90 percent of feeder flying must be to/from specific airports
• 80 percent of feeder flying must be less than 900 statute miles
• Maximum 5 percent feeder hub-to-hub
• Must maintain 90 percent of Company block hours to Joint Venture countries
• International joint venture rules require UA “metal in the market” (no Aer Lingus type agreements)
• New small narrowbody aircraft – we fly them.
• 90 percent of feeder flying must be to/from specific airports
• 80 percent of feeder flying must be less than 900 statute miles
• Maximum 5 percent feeder hub-to-hub
• Must maintain 90 percent of Company block hours to Joint Venture countries
• International joint venture rules require UA “metal in the market” (no Aer Lingus type agreements)
Nov 13, 2012, 9:06 pm
#29
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 124
I will not vote for this TA. There are far too many givebacks for what's been offered. We can do better. I'll live with the results but this agreement does not come close to what I expected. Much of what I dislike is not directly related to compensation.
Unfortunately, I predict that it will pass....somewhere in the neighborhood of 60% in favor would be my guess.
Unfortunately, I predict that it will pass....somewhere in the neighborhood of 60% in favor would be my guess.
Nov 13, 2012, 9:22 pm
#30
Join Date: Oct 2008
Programs: UA 1K, 1MM
Posts: 504
Here are a few provisions in the scope language.
• New small narrowbody aircraft – we fly them.
• 90 percent of feeder flying must be to/from specific airports
• 80 percent of feeder flying must be less than 900 statute miles
• Maximum 5 percent feeder hub-to-hub
• Must maintain 90 percent of Company block hours to Joint Venture countries
• International joint venture rules require UA “metal in the market” (no Aer Lingus type agreements)
FAB
• New small narrowbody aircraft – we fly them.
• 90 percent of feeder flying must be to/from specific airports
• 80 percent of feeder flying must be less than 900 statute miles
• Maximum 5 percent feeder hub-to-hub
• Must maintain 90 percent of Company block hours to Joint Venture countries
• International joint venture rules require UA “metal in the market” (no Aer Lingus type agreements)
FAB
- UA operated/IFE outfitted (hopefully) E190s etc? or just more 737s
- Limited capabilities of the 70 seaters and lower? so that UAL can't just say ok we'll put more of these long haul and raise ticket prices?
- 5 percent feeder hub-to-hub what hub to hub is currently express flying? That seems obnoxious?
Thanks for the info! I guess it would be forever before we see those new small narrowbody aircraft anyway so no point in getting excited at the moment but hopeful the Regional Crawl is getting slowed down (I get why its necessary for some markets but it seemed to be going Way overboard)