riphamilton

from the ir website:

http://ir.united.com/phoenix.zhtml?c...cle&ID=2131488

NH_Clark

I think I remember that one of the gating factors was CO and UA pilots working out seniority, etc. Does this mean that has been worked out, et al?

wcalvert

Any thought on there being a connecting with the 737s they just ordered for delivery next year?

Glad to see this though.

freshairborne

That puts my per hour rate 3.7% above what I was making in 2002. Same airplane, same seat.

The good: Some long-haul pilots will have rest facilities that are somewhat more isolated from banging lav doors and clanging coffee pots.

Furloughees will have their pay and seniority adjusted to contractual levels.

The bad: The reserve system not changed.

No provision for an on-time contract to be negotiated at the new amendable date of Jan 2019. If there had been any language directing both parities to complete negotiations by that date, I probably would have voted in favor of it.

FAB

mkr

So, have the pilots voted yes on this just to get something done? Are they just kicking the can down the road on other issues?

freshairborne

In some respects, yes, in others, no. The current contract, before it was extended as of today, would have been amendable in January, 2017. Our contract does not expire; it becomes amendable, so in the absence of a renegotiated contract next January, we would continue to work under the current amendable contract until one of several things happens. Negotiating a new contract that reflects current and projected economical environment would always be the most desirable outcome. That has never happened in my 29 years as a UA pilot, but generally it is negotiated within three years after it’s amendable date.

I have to look at it from the perspective that, since management is never inclined to negotiate a contract before on on the day that the old one is amendable, yet in this case they came to us with this idea, they undoubtedly wanted something very badly, and they wanted it before the current amendable date. They will not sign an agreement unless it will provide something positive for them.

For us, there were five sections (of the current 25) that they wanted to renegotiate. Some were very valuable to them, some to us. Among them were some things they were initially willing to improve for us, including restoration of furloughee longevity and the pay rates that go with that longevity, pay scale improvements, and reserve system changes. Also there was some language regarding small jets. The small jets issue and the reserve improvements were removed from the negotiations along the way because we already have what we want in the small jet agreements within the current contract (the carrot that was already in our possession) and we could come to mutually agreeable improvements in the reserve system.

The only provision that I thought would be worth voting in favor of in this agreement was the furloughee restoration part, and just by the nature of Letters of Agreement being always up for discussion, I think that this would have been addressed in further interaction with the company, well before January, 2019.

I voted no, knowing that had it not passed, I would never see a pay increase beyond a couple of 2-3% increases in the next four years, because I’d be gone before a full Section Six negotiation was negotiated and ratified. But, there will be a UA pilot group after I’m gone, and like pilots before my time, I’d be willing to hold out for something that would better for the future pilots.

In short, I think that the value of this extension is not close to what our pilots would be able to achieve in full Section Six negotiations, even though I’d unlikely ever see the personal benefit to myself.

But it passed, by a fair and democratic vote, and the majority of pilots thought it is better than what I think it is.

FAB

physioprof

FAB, thanks for that detailed explanation of your thinking, and that of your fellow pilots!

freshairborne

I appreciate that, but 79% of my fellow pilots saw it differently than I did. There were too many unknowns for any of us to make a truly 100% yay or nay decision, but that's the nature of voting on almost any issue.

FAB

JBord

You can say that again in November.

Overall though, what you described is more or less status quo with a little more benefit for the pilots right? The reason you voted against it is you wanted more changed this time around?

Given how things have gone at UA over the years, I can see how a lot of pilots would vote for that, but can also respect your opinion that there may have been a missed opportunity.

freshairborne

Yes, for guys that had been furloughed once or twice, they were supposed to have kept their longevity if they were gone less than 10 years but somehow that didn't happen. This restored that longevity, which never should have been lost, but that's now water under the bridge.

I honestly believe that if we'd have voted no, that issue would have been resolved soon anyway via a Letter of Agreement; it was owed them anyway, so why should it have to be negotiated? We all knew this. We got a 13% pay raise, which barely puts me above my 2002 pay, in face-value dollars, forget about inflation adjustments. They spun it as 16%, but we were contractually due 3% on 1/1/16, so the actual increase with this agreement is 13%.

Folks that aren't in this business almost universally misunderstand how much more important work rules are than pay raises, so I won't belabor the point. Suffice it to say, the company got way more than we did (JMHO) and more importantly, we just proved again that if they want something, they just take it. I can say with certainty that if we'd have gone to them out of the blue, they'd tell us they're happy with the current contract and we can wait for Section 6 negotiations to change something.

They came to us a year or so ago change one of these things, the FRMS stuff, with nothing to trade. We said no. This time, at least they had something to offer in return.

I think they didn't offer enough, and I also think they don't want to open the whole contract during good economic times, they want to wait til things go south again, and they will.

Again, just my opinion. Steven Wright once said that the early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese. We got the worm but I wanted the cheese.

FAB

dmurphynj

Well, with 79% of the pilots voting in favor, it's hard for me to feel that management just took what they wanted.... An overwhelming majority vote like that makes it a difficult argument.

I appreciate your argument - and the fact that you're looking out for the pilots as a whole - but I'm trying to stay wildly positive and think that Pete Townsend was wrong ("Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...") and doesn't apply here. Oscar sure seems like a breath of fresh air (no pun intended.. ok, maybe a little!) - and while I realize that a CEO does not the entirety of management make - attitude is set from the top down.

Here's to hoping for your sake -- and ours as passengers too -- that things continue to improve drastically and rapidly!

treydawgmt

I'll chime in reading this as it relates to my fire department job, and management, that seems to probably be applicable here. My village is currently notorious for not following provisions of the contract that are not spelled out exactly. (Sometimes they even fail to follow provisions that are spelled out explicitly too...)

I am somewhat lower on the seniority chain, with 6 years on the job. Last year we had a clause in our contract that essentially said no one could be laid off unless there was a "bonafide economic hardship" to the village. We thought that good enough, especially considering they have about $7 million in reserves on an annual general operating budget of about $30 million. I, however, got a layoff notice. Our union and the village reopened a part of our contract early, gave up some things, and in return got my position guaranteed. I was one of the guys that would have actually been in favor of letting me get laid off and fighting - I'm not really sure how $200,000 total (two firefighters pay and benefits) can be an economic hardship in a $30 million dollar budget with $7 million in reserves. The vote was probably 85% in favor though. I think sometimes people just aren't really willing to drag out a fight for something they should be getting when management will give it to them without question while buying something else.

While I see both sides, I think it is the new way - we have to ask for more and accept much less than we are asking for, otherwise it will be a long battle in a mediator/court/or public situation where in most cases these people are anti-union. While we probably would have won our fight in arbitration, had we lost I would have lost big time personally. This at least guaranteed jobs and pay - in both of our cases.

beach bound

as a passenger I am glad the extension was signed. Now lets hope the FA can figure out how to be on the same contract.

goodeats21

Great post altogether, FAB. Thanks as always for your insights.

The above part really resonated when viewing the on-going trouble with the FA contract.

Curious: were the sCO/sUA Pilot work rules more closely aligned, at least as compared to the FA rules? There did not seem to be the angst over aligning the Pilot work rules, at least publicly.

fly18725

The much tighter regulation of pilots by the FAA should make work rules much closer than for FAs. Seniority issues are still there and I don't recall if this were a stumbling block.