Politics

By now you are all familiar with my position on our so called negotiations. I ask you to take a look at the beneficiaries of the actions to date. While we are asked to put our jobs on the line, Delta pilots get to see a union strengthening attempt by which they could benefit, at no risk to themselves. Heppner gets to see himself as the white knight taking the fight to the management thieves that he likes to blame for our duress, regional affiliates get to see their market share exploding overnight as we shrink operations..........and you get to watch this all happening, from the outside. Ihear it time and again:"it's been too long, we must do something. Management continues to drag it's heels" etc etc etc. To buy into this kamikaze strategy you have to first accept two things: one, that we presented a reasonable offer to them, and have attempted to move towards a mutual solution. Two, that our union leader really wants that solution. Let me say here and now that I don't believe we have acted in good faith. ALPA, if you want to disprove this accusation, release the minutes of the meetings and offers/counter offers. Regarding the second accusation, ask yourselves this: why has our leader set us on a divisive path with management and CAL pilots? Why did he undermine Wendy Morse' leadership organizing spurious "special" MEC meetings? why did he file for release without consulting Pierce? Why has he continued to personalize and antagonize our CEO, when he knows that could result in irrational and mutually destructive decisions? These are all symptoms of megalomania, and I believe he should be removed from office immediately. If not, you will pay.

The Real End Game

                                                                  The Real End Game

May 27^th issue of the Leading Edge:  The Chapter Entitled “United Mainline and the RLA” leaves us with the cryptic comment “to be continued….”

I cannot believe that you, the ALPA member reading this, are prepared to accept this form of insult. There is only one step after the litany of procedures that are enumerated here, and ALPA cleverly omits it, hoping you are too dumb to find out for yourselves. It is this: After the release from the NMB, and after the proffer of arbitration, and after the thirty day cooling off, and after the Presidential Emergency Board (“In practice, PEB’s are relatively rare” they say……………………. ….well…duh…everything is relatively rare…..we don’t strike every day),

What happens is Congress gets to write your contract. Let me repeat that for the slow witted:

 CONGRESS-GETS-TO-WRITE-YOUR-CONTRACT.

That

Is

The

End

Game.

Best of luck.

Mass hysteria and the duping of the pilot group.

It's finally come down to it. Your fearless leader Heppner wants you to walk off the property.
1)Do you know what you have been offered?
No.
2)Will you know the results of the strike vote.
No.
3)Did Heppner consult with his peer  before petitioning the NMB for release?
No.
4)Are we working towards a contract?
No.

Those are the facts. I am sure many of you dispute them, so let's take a look at the reasoning of ALPA in each one:

1) ALPA has stated repeatedly that this must be kept secret for negotiating purposes. The company could use the information against us. Fine. There are two inconsistencies with this statement. First, when we walk off the property we are ceasing to negotiate. All bets are off, so there is no point in being coy....unless you don't want the membership to know. Perhaps they might like what was offered and undermine the kamikaze plan?  Second, Pieter Velzeboer (SPSC chair) seemed to have no qualms about disclosing the potential benefit of a false strike vote "voting yes may be the best way to avoid a strike". i.e Say you are going to strike but don't plan  on it. Give the MEC the power and hope they don't use it. What utter rubbish. Gamesmanship with YOUR life. But as a ploy it becomes ineffective if the company knows about it. Which they do as he posted it publicly.
2) Dan Swanson stated that the MEC will decide IF, when and in what manner the results will be publicized. Read between the lines. If it's not overwhelmingly positive, YOU WILL NOT BE TOLD.
3) I am not sure when Heppner would have come clean as quickly as he did were it not for the pressure put on the communications committee by yours truly in publishing the CAL pilots disdainful reaction to Heppner's political move. This was after two weeks of stonewalling by Swanson et. al. at UAL ALPA.
4) Recently I have encountered two ALPA reps. One told me that he had it on good authority that we are seeking to increase the pilot cost from $800 million per annum to $ 2 billion per annum. A 150% cost increase based on pay, retirement and work rule changes. Even the most favorable arbitrator, or the most dispassionate observer would agree that this kind of stance is a demand that can never be met without bankrupting the airline. It is a non starter. (And you wonder why the company is dragging its feet?). The second told me we are seeking what amounted to $800 million in signing bonus'/retro pay.  i.e 60% of all last years profits gone in one swoop. It would be hilarious were it not so dangerous. How accurate these numbers are I have no way of knowing because the reps I pay for will not tell me what I should rightfully know.

ALPA has persistently refused to act in good faith. It has lied to its members. It has never put forward a reasonable offer to the company. It has not told its members a single detail of the pros and cons of the talks. It is conning them into sacrificing their livelihoods for the sake of a mad dream by its chairman.
I predicted this many months ago: That we would be asked to quit our jobs without knowing why. Now the time has come. To vote FOR a strike without knowing what we have been offered is in my mind, insane.
If, indeed, as they claim, the company is dragging their feet then SHOW US! Show us their first offer and show us their current offer. Let us decide. This is a democracy.
But that's what they called Nazi Germany too.

June 15th PREDICTION

Your union leaders will be unable to reach an agreement with management on the contract and will call for release from mediation and a strike.
Why am I so certain of this?
Because they have demonstrated no other desire from the outset of negotiations. From day 1, demanding the United contract as a template, with all is built in inefficiencies (even though it had LESS SCOPE PROTECTION FOR YOU), to the dismissal of management's opener, to the refusal to accept binding arbitration, and now the "End game" fiasco, which is designed to kill any agreement before it is reached, your union leaders have pushed us further down the road toward a strike. Much as I have been chastised and mischaracterised, leading me to the unfortunate position of being the union's antagonist, management has suffered the same fate. A management that would have at some point come to an agreement more acceptable to you is now positioned to dig in its heels with the objective of, along with fiscal responsibility and a sustainable vision for the future, rid itself of the factions within the pilot group that would rather see mutual failure than give any creedance to management's claims.
The junior pilots will suffer the most (as always). Your careers will be over as most of you are among the 50-ish age group and therefore unemployable in this field.
I fully expect the union to commit to the strike, and to maintain it for a substantial period, causing management to hire replacements (which will NOT be furloughed to make room for your return...read the case law).
Your solution to this dilemma is to look at the facts, the history and the behavior of the parties involved, and make your OWN educated decision. Most, unfortunately, will succumb to the comfortable herd mentality in the mistaken belief that "We can't all be wrong".
At least demand from your leaders the full, unedited minutes of the negotiations itemizing what was offered and refused so that you can see what is being demonstrated.
I do not wish any of you ill, but if, by your own free will, you walk off this property never to return, you have my sympathy but not my support.

Continental MEC and their position

As you know by now, I have made every effort to get our MEC to tell us what they are doing, why they are doing it NOW, and if the Continental PIlots are on board with the plan. The United MEC has seen fit to stonewall me and display their usual arrogance. For two weeks I asked them for answers and got absolutely NOTHING. I turned to the Continental MEC directly and in ONE DAY, they sent me this. Please read it thoroughly as it explains why Heppner et. al. were refusing to say anything.
The following is a mesage for the Continental MEC to their pilots:

Today is Friday, April 27, 2012 and we have 5 items for review today.

The last two weeks have been among the most interesting and the most frustrating in our tenure as your elected reps.  We understand that the result for our pilots has been a renewal of questions about the path to a deal under the RLA and the strategy of a “petition for release”. Questions have been raised about joint strategy and the value of unilateral strategic decisions. Please bear with us while we try to answer some of your concerns. Put on your strategic hats as you read and be mindful of how all of these pieces tie together. 

Item 1:  “Petition for Release”

In December of 2010, management and the JNC entered into mediated negotiations for our Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement.  As you all know, we have negotiated since then with an ever increasing presence from our assigned mediator, and recently, the addition of the Senior mediator for whom he works.  All of this occurs under the supervision of the three member National Mediation Board. It’s important to keep in mind that the role of the NMB under the Railway Labor Act is to facilitate a deal so as to avoid a disruption in interstate commerce, not to “allow us to go on strike”. A strike is not the goal of mediation,  it is the failure of the process.

In mediated negotiations, the NMB will decide how long to keep the parties in negotiations (or, in the alternative, not schedule negotiations, i.e. put the parties “on ice”) before moving on to the next step.  What is that next step?  Either party (management or ALPA) may petition to the NMB, or the NMBmay offer on its own, for a proffer of arbitration. A “proffer” is a request that the parties agree to resolve their difference in binding arbitration.  If either party declines this offer, which is the norm, a 30 day “cooling off” period begins the day after either party declines, during which the pilots MAY NOT engage in “self-help,” but negotiations may continue in an attempt to come to a deal. If, after 30 days, there is no agreement, both sides will be released to “self-help” (a strike or other legal job action in our case and a lockout or unilaterally imposed contract terms in the case of management.)  However, if the NMB believes a release will cause significant harm to commerce, it will recommend that the President convene a Presidential Emergency Board.

The PEB is a three person panel appointed by the President, tasked with writing a report with recommendations for resolution of the items in dispute. Once a PEB is convened, any release to “self-help” is, at that point, further delayed until 30 days after the PEB report is released. This report is non-binding and, therefore, may be declined by either party. As we stated, the release may commence 30 days after the report is issued- unless, Congress steps in, legislates an agreement, and imposes it on both parties.

It bears repeating that the role of the NMB is to facilitate a deal, not a strike. A release to “self-help” is a tool used by the NMB as a last resort, generally when they believe it is the only remaining path to a successful conclusion to the negotiations.  The release will only happen if the NMB believes that all remaining avenues have been exhausted, that maximum effort has been applied to negotiate a deal and that the number of open items remaining is small enough that they can be resolved in a relatively short amount of time.  This is not speculation or opinion, this is what the NMB officials have told us directly many times.

Item 2:  Unity and Joint Strategy

We hear all the time “Management fears unity” and “Our leverage is in a unified pilot group and unified union leadership”- this is a common theme in all negotiating cycles. We hear those same sentiments now in our path to a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement for all of the pilots of United Airlines and Continental Airlines. While there is truth to these sentiments- it is an incomplete truth.  Our leverage comes from unity behind a sound joint strategy.  Unity behind a flawed strategy instills no fear and brings no leverage- it merely provides management with an entertaining side show to enjoy while they have their way with us.  When negotiating a joint agreement, the ONLY sound strategy is one built jointly from the ground up, one that is properly vetted and implemented jointly and with the best interest of both pilot groups, as advocated by all the duly elected representation, being paramount.  Each and every pilot working under United Continental Holding, Inc. deserves to be protected and represented in every negotiating strategy decision- whether they wear a black uniform to work, or a blue one.

As you have heard from your MEC and your MEC Chairman, two weeks ago, CA Pierce, as directed by our MEC, agreed to a process of using small group negotiations, with an appellate process to break logjams with the goal of reaching the terms of an agreement by mid- June. This process was approved by CAs Pierce and Heppner and the company under the supervision of the NMB and was modeled after the small group negotiating setting under which the recent uptick in progress occurred. Ironically, this same process, in its commitment to methodically negotiating through open items should also have the result of paring open items down to a number where a request for a proffer of arbitration would be appropriate.  Last Monday, CA Heppner announced his initiative to “petition for a release” on June 1^st if we have no deal.  You all know by now that your MEC was not included in that decision, the planning or the vetting of that strategy.  Additionally, CA Heppner announced that they had hired a lobbying firm to “put pressure on the NMB”. Again, we were not briefed on or included in the decision.  Many pilots have contacted us to ask Will this work? What happens June 1^st? How does a lobbyist help?  These are good questions.  We laid out the process in Item 1, but, as for the rest….We simply don’t know, CA Heppner hasn’t told us.

Last week your MEC directed CA Pierce to work with CA Heppner to put together a protocol to how and when any “petition for release” would be pursued, to be agreed to by both parties. In other words, we asked to enter into their strategy as full and equal partners- to protect your rights and represent your interests. Additionally, we directed him to get CA Heppner to set up a briefing for him by their lobbying group.  CA Pierce had already gotten feedback from the NMB, on which he briefed us, and we were given input in session by our members of the JNC and our attorneys.  All we want is the complete picture of the plan by talking to all the parties involved, not just a lobbying group, so we can evaluate the strategy before we dive in. After all, that is what you elected us to do.  Thus far, those requests have been declined. Apparently, we are expected to jump aboard as passengers on a train already leaving the station, no questions asked. We simply cannot do that. Any attempt to marginalize your MEC, your MEC Chairman or your negotiators, marginalizes you- and the stakes are just too high for us to allow it.

Our commitment to you remains unchanged. We will support any strategy that moves us to the industry leading contract you have directed us to achieve. We will support any strategy that we believe will get us to that goal in the shortest amount of time. We will continuously assess timeline vs. quality in our efforts to achieve the RIGHT deal in the shortest amount of time. We will be constantly aware of the lessons we learned in the aftermath of Contract 02- deadlines can be met, but at what cost?  We know you are frustrated- so are we- but we won’t do this deal in a careless way simply to hit some target date that we didn’t set.  We know what that looks like, we live it every day.  We, too, want the best deal we can get in the shortest amount of time and are onboard with any viable plan to get us there without sacrificing quality. We also believe that our pilots deserve a voice at the table in any negotiating strategy we employ, both in the planning stage and the implementation. CA Heppner needs to brief CA Pierce on his strategy and work on an agreement to include us as equal partners- you deserve no less. 

Item 4:  Secretary-Treasurer Editorial

The overwhelming majority of our pilots are not interested, and even annoyed by, union politics and process.  You are justifiably tired of waiting, you want a great contract, and you want it right now. Believe me, we are right there with you. The unfortunate reality is that we must deal with the hand we have been dealt.  Our contract effort has been greatly complicated by many factors.  First, union membership is the lowest it has ever been in modern times, greatly reducing our political power. Second, Washington is flooded with corporate money.  Third, the courts have become tilted against unions in recent decades.  Fourth, most major news media outlets are controlled by huge corporations, and slanted toward the corporate viewpoint. Last, but certainly not least, we remain two separate pilot groups and two MEC's, yet we must jointly negotiate a common contract. 

It is easy to grab onto the sound bites that have recently been published in releases from the United MEC, and believe that ANYTHING different than what we have been doing, would be better.  Unfortunately, that would be playing right into management's hands.  Management stonewalled us for an entire year, but the reality is that we finally did begin to make MEDIATED progress on a JCBA in recent months.  I spoke one on one with our Negotiating Committee Chairman Captain Dave Owens for 45 minutes several weeks ago, and he provided me great details on the progress made to that point.  I was frankly amazed at how far management has moved to improve scheduling work rules beyond what any Continental pilot has ever experienced, at least since 1983 and before.  The slave labor days of no contract, C'95, C'97 and C'02 will finally come to a close.

Our MEC is willing to explore any SOUND strategy that will help us finish this agonizing process.  With that said, it would be a gross dereliction of duty, to simply rubber-stamp a United MEC strategy that Continental pilots did not take part in developing, and which we have not even been briefed on.  Continental pilots deserve representation all the way to the finish line.  We did not elect a single United MEC representative, and not a single United MEC representative has a duty to represent a single one of us.  Until the JCBA, SLI and merger are all completed, and we have combined into ONE MEC, the interests of the Continental pilots must be represented by the Continental MEC.A unilateral strategy on the part of either MEC is doomed to failure.  It is as reckless as it is arrogant, for the United MEC to unilaterally make and implement strategic decisions about our JOINT Collective Bargaining Agreement, which Continental pilot representatives took no part in, and first learned of via the press. This merger was announced on day one as “a merger of equals.” Indeed, it was the Continental shareholders who received a premium in the stock merger.  This merger does NOT in any way, shape or form resemble American Airlines buying Reno Air, or Southwest buying AirTran.  “Merger of equals” means equal partners in negotiating a JOINT Collective Bargaining Agreement.  “Equal partners” does not mean that one party unilaterally makes critical strategic decisions, then announces, “this is the plan, (blindly) follow us.”

With all of that said, our entire MEC recognizes the fact that we have all waited far too long to get out from under a terrible contract that completely gutted the already immature and incomplete IACP C'97.  If we persevere just a little longer, we can truly WORK TOGETHER with the United MEC as EQUAL PARTNERS to JOINTLY secure the JOINT contract we all deserve.  There is simply no other way.  Stay tuned, stay informed, and do not allow management to shift the blame – and your anger - toward our union.

Item 5:  Next Local Council Meeting

The next Local Council 170 meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 21, 2012 from 11 am to 4 pm at the Newark Airport Marriott.  Given current events, your LEC Officers strongly encourage all pilots who are off to attend this very important meeting.  No blastmail can take the place of hearing first hand all the happenings of this very intricate and sensitive process known as JCBA negotiations. Be an active participant and part of the process by attending.

Please continue to state, “This flight is proudly being flown by a Continental Airlines crew,” during your welcome aboard PAs.

That is all for today, thank you.

Fraternally,

Chairman Captain Jayson Baron

SO HEPPNER HAS DIVIDED THE PILOT GROUPS. I SAY IT'S TIME TO GET RID OF HIM AND HIS ENTOURAGE!

ALPA fails to come clean

After Jay Heppner's statement of April 17th stating his intent to request release from mediation I have made repeated efforts to get an answer on the Continental pilots' position on this move. Dan Swanson and the rest of the UAL ALPA communications team have refused to give me an answer on this. The Continental MEC's initial response was "We were not consulted or advized of this unilateral move". Whether or not that is still the case remains a mystery. Calls have been made to the CAL MEC requesting a position statement. Until we get a response from them we are in the dark. Meanwhile, the crew room festers with animosity and a culture of divisiveness thrives.
Well done Jay, Dan, Loren; this will be your legacy.

Divided

Congratulations Captain Heppner, you have now succesfully divided the workforce in your own selfifh quest to enhance your authority. IF you don't believe me, just look at the comments on the crew room denigrating Continental pilots for their "silence" in this matter. For those of you who don't get this, I request that you ask two questions:
1) Why NOW? Why did the international scope issue suddenly become important enough, NOW?
2) Why was Jay Pierce and the Continental group NOT CONSULTED? (We have this on good authority from their secretary treasurer)
It defies logical explanation, why one leader of a bipartisan workforce would unilaterally declare war on the opposition, unless..............it is a powerplay for absolute control. A gamble for power at the expense of the troops.
As of now, Heppner is in the driver's seat. Pierce is confronted with three options. He can:
1) Tell his guys "we didn't sign on for this, go to work if they (United legacy pilots) strike." Political suicide.
2) Honor the picket line WHICH HE HAD NO HAND IN CREATING. He is now Heppner's leiutenant.
3) Get on board before the deadline. He is now a camp follower.
Any way you slice it, this was a deft move by Heppner to gain power. There is only one problem with the plan as I see it: Heppner is gambling on not being released from mediation (no matter what rubbish to the contrary he is feeding his underlings) and if we ARE released, we have a fractured workforce in no shape to pull off a successful strike. Heppner's plan is to look tough and stir up a frenzy to mask the ineptitude and abject failure of his policies, while gaining the lead position at the table.
If anyone has a LOGICAL (not emotional) argument that disputes tis theory I would be glad to hear it. If all you have are angry epithets and mischaracterizations, save your breath, I don't have the time to babysit emotional cripples.

STRIKE!

Well Captain Heppner, you pulled the pin. By demanding a contract "or else" by April 30th you have effectively set a June 9th strike date.
I received the "fact sheet" demonstrating the reasoning. Outourcing, off-shoring etc etc. My question is this: This is nothing new, so why now? If it was so important to you why was scope not the first thing you negotiated? If you are so concerned about regional flying then why not a move to secede from ALPA national and its sponsorship of the regionals?
If you are so concerned about ousourcing then why weren't negotiations on the 250 ninety seaters the company wants to buy conducted as a top priority? Why do we not know what was/was not offered or rejected?
No! This is a rallying cry because you know, as a conniving manipulator of sentiment, that this is THE emotional wellspring of the masses. This is the holy gail of hysteria. This is the only way you will get your name in the history books.

Conviction? What conviction?

In response to my post regarding Jay Heppner's preliminary plans to seek release form mediation, I received what can only be described as hate mail. It's tone said more about the people who were saying it than what was actually said. Opinions were not validated by fact or logic. Emotions ruled, epithets abounded, and the whole rank and file sounded suspiciously like a precursor to a schoolyard brawl. I should have expected it I guess, I have come to see sensible objectivity in short supply here.
But to all you ALPA protagonists I say this: If you cannot articulate why you are ready to join Heppner's kamikaze warriors jump into the abyss, you probably don't really believe it's the right thing to do. You will do it to conform, under penalty of ostracization (it's not so bad by the way), but this will wear thin very quickly, and without GOOD reasons, a strike line will not be held.
"It is an order, and we're doing it" is not a good reason.

Blind Allegiance

A fellow pilot posited this to me the other day: If you were a soldier, at war, and were orderd to do something perilous which could very possibly result in your death, but was seen by your commanders as absolutely necessary, would you do it? I answered, "Yes".
We had been discussing my position on th negotiations and my objections to striking. His point was to draw a parallel between the soldier at war and the employee in negotiations, and to show me my inconsistency of logic.
This is a representation most of you believe in, and it is false. It fails to recognize the different premises on which the two instances are based, namely:
As a soldier you accept the prerequisite of following orders unquestioningly, or the war machine beaks down.
As a civilian you live by choice, electives, preferences. You are free to dissent. You are free to quit what you do at any time.
ALPA would have you believe that you are constantly in a state of war. After all, this is the only way YOU are manageable. The choices you would make are taken from you, and you are lead to believe this is a normal state of affairs. It is not. It is a fabrication designed to empower certain people at your expense.
Most of you who were in the military are no longer, but I believe the mindset has been planted firmly in many and you are unable to recognize the inherent power you, as individuals, possess. It is unfortunately to your detriment.
You should have a good reason for everything you do in life.
"It was an order" is not a good reason.

The meaning of "release" and is Heppner retiring?

4/14/12 ALPA declares an impasse on R&I with management
4/14/12 Heppner launches into a tirade about who will decide on release from mediation (him) and what it means (we will be called on to strike 40 days hence)

Question: Is a person in a high place planning on retiring only to find he lost his golden parachute?

Understand this: You will be granting him the power to potentially destroy your careers by doing nothing more than conforming to the mass mindset. To disempower this dangerous force you have to think critically, act independently, and not look for validation or support from your peers. Your rationale should be able to stand up of its own right. There is no moral imperative to go to war and to cast our counterparts at management in the same light as an enemy soldier ready to kill you. This is a mistaken, incorrect and naive thing to do.
You must be able to look in the mirror and say "Yes, you are doing the right thing". Not "I am following orders".

It is YOUR choice. Not ALPA's. Not your buddy's. Zealotry has no place here.

70 seaters, scope, and obstacles to your raise and a better contract

I would like to share with you a couple of rumors, for what they are worth, and then make a suggestion which could expedite a contract.
RUMORS:
1) When the initial company offer was made that the United faction was more receptive to considering aspects of it than the Continental group.
2) Jay Pierce has no vested interest in seeing a contract signed. He personally sees no upside.
3) The company is receptive to the 90 seaters being flown in house.
4) The 50 seaters are future ash trays as they have never turned a profit.

Let's put these together and look at what is preventing us from getting a contract.  Continental, as you know, did not allow 70 seaters on the property, and as such, they will consider it a losing proposition to accept the change to outsource that flying. We, on the other hand, don't have 70 seaters in house  so not having them in the future would be no loss to us.

I therefore submit that if scope is a big issue, a big stumbling block, and the aspect of scope that the company sees as being costly is losing the cheap outsourced 70 seat flying and having to entertain the extra cost of flying it in house, then the time and money that WE are losing is in large part for the purpose of creating in house 70 seat flying....which we don't care about. Which nobody on the property will be doing in the future. i.e. YOU are taking the loss of not getting a raise sooner so that some undisclosed/as-yet-not-hired pilot can get a better deal. Lucky you. Very magnanimous. Your representatives may even take issue with the 70 seat flying to the extent of calling a strike on that count. i.e, you would be asked to risk sacrificing your job for someone not even on the property!
I therefore urge you all to write to your representatives and suggest that letting the company have the 70 seaters is a bargaining chip we are prepared to entertain. The Continental group will cry foul, as well they should. Fine, we're all one big family now so I say put it to the vote and let's see how it shakes out. This could be a turning point in the mired, no-progress negotiations that we are coming to accept as status quo. We are the larger group and as such have every right to expect a certain weight in our favor on some issues. This is one of them. It's all well and good to say WE ARE UNITED but the fact is there are separate agendas and priorities at work here, and to ignore that is naive.
Management can assist us in achieving this by demonstrating to the Continental pilots that the extra 90 seat flying we will see that replaces the 70 seat flying represents jobs created . Not all 90 seat flying will be coming off Airbus and 737 routes, and that which comes from 70 seat routes represents in house expansion. The Continental guys need to realize this to be on board.
We also have to understand that current management is about operations, expansion, competition. The old United would simply have seen smaller airplanes on the property as replacements and therefore cost cuts, but I believe our current management would use them largely as additions to the fleet in an effort to get bigger, badder, and more dominant in the marketplace.
One thing is for sure: If we don't change our views on some things  we will never see a new contract during our careers. If you don't believe me, consider this: USAirways and America West are now SEVEN years into their life together, with NO NEW CONTRACT. Is that what you want here?

More hysteria

Well,
March the 3rd came and went with the minimum of fuss. Our union would have had us believe that the "company" was acting in a rash , unprepared manner, and that chaos was afoot.
Apparently not.
Please guys, learn to pick the right battles. Openly criticizing everything simply because of its source only makes you seem petulant and marginalizes your viewpoint. It undermines any credibility at real, valid criticisms you may have.

The SHARES debacle

As we all know, the new (old) reservations system has caused many delays and discomfort. As I have been largely critical of our union on this blog, I feel it only right to spread the good cheer once in a while.
Whereas the SHARES system may be cheaper and therefore desirable for us to use, management would do well to tweak it a little so that the system runs better.
1) The TICKETS! Get rid of the gate # printed  on them as it may be very misleading. Print the destination and flight number in print somewhat larger than a credit card disclaimer please. Every CSR I have talked to agrees with this.
2) Review the available-to-be-booked numbers. Some high density flights are being  chronically overbooked resulting in large denied boarding payouts. Irresponsible!!
3) Observe contractual agreements. SHARES will book a deadheading pilot in THE WORST SEAT POSSIBLE (i.e. as far back and a middle seat) as it can. It is then incumbent upon the CSR to rectify the problem............if the prearranged (i.e printed on your trip) seat is still available. If not, tough on you. Now, going to an assignment you have some clout. But going home you are very much the pauper in this negotiation. Needless to say this has caused untold acrimony between the CSRs and deadheading pilots. There is no reason for this. It simply causes delays and shows the company off in a very poor light to the public.
Management can demonstrate how committed it is to efficient operations by rectifying these problems. We don't need a study group. We don't need a committee of bureaucrats meddling. These are simple I.T. issues easily resolved in a matter of days.
 Please get on it.

The introduction

Many of you know me from flying here, or previously at Pan Am, or from the picket line at Eastern in '89. You know me to be honest and not weak, so please understand that this is is not a product of self service or  management aspirations but a real desire to get the best available for everyone.
I am not a management "dupe". I am a pragmatist. I do not see the issue we have here as an "us versus them". I see it as tripartite: The management-ALPA-you. WE are not being told everything we need to know. Your representatives have your fate in their hands and frankly, I don't trust them to act in your best interests. Egos and absolutes are at work here so, as in the unfortunate past, there is a real possibility of a tragic, life changing decision being made on your behalf because of the "heels dug in/ I'm not giving anything else up" attitude that will ultimately derail all negotiations, give you a USAir scenario, and put us in an even worse economic climate in which to try and get a deal down the road.
It's interesting that when people here speak one on one we are far more apt to accept the idea of some bargained concessions in exchange for more pay and security, but in a group we shout it out: Hell, just vote NO! Sounds tough. Plays well in the schoolyard.
Your representatives are costing you money. Money you will never get back.
Contact your reps and tell them to get it done. Accept competitive wage scales on everything RIGHT DOWN TO THE RJs, grant management the flexibilty they need to be profitable and secure your future. 
Let's hear your thoughts.

The staffing fallacy

I want to share my views with you on the much touted logic that "if we work less, management will need to hire more pilots" and why this is demonstrably untrue.
This logic has given rise to terrible divisiveness within our ranks, people's names being brandished, almost as scabs, if they accepted a junior manning assignment. The action of our union engaging in non voted side letters preventing us from making money.  For instance, the original TED contract had no pay cap. Your union closeted a little side letter that turned the 95-max flight hrs/month onto 95 max pay hrs/month. Arguable as inconsequential until split IDs with deadheads start showing up and you are prevented by your union from capitalizing on soft time trips that would have brought your pay over 95 but kept the flight time below that number. All done in the spirit of egalitarianism I suppose. Or that's what they would have you believe. Pay caps are reduced further when our pilots are on the street, supposedly to force management into bringing them back sooner than they otherwise would. Work rules negotiated that were deliberately inefficient for the same reason. It's the "Create Busy Work" scenario.
Work less=Management must hire more.
But this not true.
Basically, if we work less, we drive the cost per hour of our services up. We make ourselves more expensive. Bean counters take one look at an increasing expense and do what they are programmed to do and reduce the expense. They cut flying. They do not increase the expense more by adding to the payroll. To expect this behaviour presupposes that the block hours are constant, and were that true, popular (ALPAs) logic would indeed follow. Management would have ot hire more pilots.
It is not true. They don't.
Block hours are variable. Projections get changed on a monthly basis based on market conditions. So block hours can be cut at the management's behest. Sounds counter intuitive but that is largely because the brainwashing of the last 20 years  has served to curtail critical thinking to a large extent. It's politically sellable. Think about it: In order to be a supporter, and one of the team, all you have to do is.....nothing. Unfortunately what you do  by engaging in this obfuscation is actually counter productive, having an effect opposite to the one intended.
A few examples:
Blue Skies agreement:  Pilot costs reduced>>>block hours subsequently increase
Beginning of ESOP: Pilot costs reduced>>>> block hour flying increases dramatically
Beginning of Shuttle contract: Pilot costs reduced>>>>block hours increase
End of Shuttle contract: Pilot costs increased>>>>block hours decrease
End of ESOP/Contract 2000: Pilot costs increased>>>> block hours decrease
LCC contract: Pilot costs reduced>>>>block hours increase

These are six instances where the correlation is documented. Once or twice could be a coincidence. Six, to me, is proof.
Just think of this next time you engage in a practise that drives up costs. Of any kind. (For the record...I do NOT believe in a Pollyanna world where "we can save the company". I DO believe we can destroy it if we try hard enough. I DO believe you can incentivize management to ousource if you become too expensive, and I DO believe you can incentivize management to increase the flying on the property by being more efficient)
I do not believe you are helping yourselves in acting out a flawed strategy. It is particularly apparent to management bean counters when the direct employee cost is the one on the table, instantly visible, and ripe for surgery.
Continental's pilots, even though they get paid considerably more than we do, are cheaper for management to operate than us because of their greater flexibility and less "QOL" work rules in their contract. The expansion in the merged company is being seen almost exclusively on the Continental side.
They are hiring
We have 1400+ on furlough.
Any questions?

The underemployed

Us. The lower lineholders. The reserves.
Much has been made of the houly rate issue in our current contract negotiations but little has been said about the fact that many of us cannot make a decent paycheck because there is not enough work (or thanks to PBS, the senior lineholders can collect 90+hours per month and leave the rest swinging in the breeze). Our counterparts at Continental do not see this vast disparity. Only in our precious United culture do we see this. But that's bye the bye. Taking pot shots at those who have the opportunity to make money is a little disingenuous (kind of like ALPA members berating those who accept junior manning assignments). The fact is, the problem would not occur if management were incentivized to expand the airline. i.e. By knowing what their future costs were going to be. By having us locked in a contract. By creating more work, your 70 hr/month paycheck becomes a 90/hr /month paycheck, and with proper work rules that can be achieved in the same days (Remember the shuttle??). That's a 28.57% pay raise without touching the hourly rate. Now, given that management's original offer (I don't know if it's still on the table, after two years maybe they rescinded it) was what amounted to a 22% pay raise, a combination of these increases amounts ot a 54% pay raise. That's for YOU. The junior lineholders. The reserves that would become lineholders. As you can see, the United element of the "New United" has not seen any expansion since the merger, so don't expect any changes until a contract is signed.
So to all of you who are in this position, I say Make Yourselves Heard! You have a right to the opportunities that are being offered, and you owe nothing to those who would stifle those opportunities.

On the attitude of ageing pilots

This is going to ruffle a lot of feathers, but the truth needs to be heard.
But first, let me take you back to the summer of '91 when I was an LCA on the 727 panel at Pan Am. Things were not going well. We were selling routes. The BIG cherry just picked was the European operation (Frankfurt hub/A-310s) and the NY shuttle (LGA hub/727s) going to Delta. Delta wanted the crews they were prepared to take already trained in seat and type. So to accomodate the senior folk ALPA, the FEIA and management REBID the airline. Those who would have been saved from the inevitable collapse (like me) by going to Delta were now looking down both barrels at unemployment, furlough notice in hand and 90 days to figure out what to do. Yeah, my union was looking out for me again god bless 'em. So when I get called into the office and told in effect "You will be training your replacements" (the 747 F/Es who were bidding back to the 727 panel) I was at a loss for words. A thousand emotions flew across my mind.
But I was still collecting a paycheck and as far as I was concerned, I had entered into an agreement with the company to provide services in exchange for it. I had no aspirations at a management slot or salvation of some other kind, I was just keeping my word. A working stiff. Moreover, I knew the history of the replacements. Many had suffered long furloughs, were pushing 60 with little retirement, this was their shot at a day in the sun. I was no spring chicken (late thirties, a couple of airline failures already under my belt, no retirement to speak of, a newborne baby.....the usual story) but I recognized their situation was more dire than my own. I did the checkrides, got them all through (some needed work) and felt good about being able to help when called on. December '91 I was back to flying boxes around in a Cessna 310 for 20K a year.
Fast forward now to 2007 and the brouhaha about raising the retirement age is in full swing. Young pilots rabid about the potential for stifled growth because the old guys won't leave. United ALPA took a vote and it was about 70-30 against raising the age limit. Of course the rest of the world was going to do it, The US government was going to do it, and so ALPA national rolled over and acquiesced to it. But had it depended on a straw vote it would have failed, and age 60 would have remained the law. Never at any time did I hear a younger pilot express anything except WHAT PERSONALLY BENEFITTED HIM. The greater good, others needs, the ultimate benefit to him monetarily, all were ignored. It was me, me , me like a broken record. Not vey impressive from an ethical standpoint. Pretty poor.
Unfortunatley it gets worse.
There are many turning 60 now (like me) who are aware that their presence was, by and large, not wanted on the property. (If we were to assume that everyone over 55 voted to extend retirement age, and that the age demographic from 35 to 55 is roughly constant, then we see a shocking 7:1 vote within the 35 -55 age group against raising the age limit.). The majority had spoken.
Well, they, the old guys,  are on the property. They are not going anywhere.
And so when you look for unity, when you look for someone over the age of 60 to put their job on the line for your benefit, for your future, for your "quality of life", for your scope protection, remember this:
You didn't want him to have that job or that vote in the first place. He is already an outcast in his mind. Had you had your way he would be unemployed right now thanks to you.

It's nothing personal, just business.

Expansion

The other day I got into a conversation with a Chicago F/O who was miffed about the potential for CAL opening a 737 base at ORD, and that we may open a 320 base at IAH. "The flying's gotta come from somewhere" he opined. They gain, we lose! "I'm gonna have guys 10 years junior to me takin' my flying!" I know many of you share this view. Ultimately this is what's going to happen, and an integration of seniority based on equality of relative % will happen; so unless you want our current situation for the rest of your careers, I suggest you get with the program.
The problem is, most of you can see no upside, and little wonder. You have spent your careers at United under a variety of managements, none of which cared about operations or expansion. They were all about trading assets, off balance sheet accounting, tax breaks, alliances, fuel hedges.....anything that didn't include YOU.
So along comes the Continental culture; one of expansion and growth. Efficiency and competition. They don't treat their employees with kid gloves, true.  But they pay better, offer more opportunities and expand while our culture contracts and decays into dust. And you cannot believe it. To you, it's more of the same, a zero sum game at best.
It's not. These guys want to grow and our union (with your sanction) is doing its best to prevent it by obstructing every single move.
The opening of new crew bases should be welcomed as a sign of growth, but instead small minded partisan nitpicking can be heard like broken glass in a peppermill as we wring our hands and shake our heads at "them".

Our sacrifices

They are many. They are vast. The sacrifices we have made to keep this company afloat are a testament to our commitment to its continued existence. They were noble, valourous acts worthy of historical note.
Or were they?
Did we have an option? Yes, we could have quit and found other jobs.
Did we? No.
Why? This was obviously the best option.
Did we do this to save the company?
No. We did it for ourselves.
So this moral high ground we think we inhabit is in actual fact a self indulged sham.
The truth is this: We get what we can negotiate, not what we conceive of being morally worth.
Which brings me to the economic thrust of this post. Something I think you all need to hear and many are carefully avoiding.
We are in an industry with declining margins and ever increasing competition. True, as of late with the two big mergers underfoot there has been a temporary respite, but the nature of these mergers only serves to underscore the historic trend. As I have said before, we today,will make less than our predecessors. We will make more than those who follow us. This is  a trend that is determined not by our management but by intractable market forces and public demands. To have an offer on the table such as we have had sitting there for the last year and to discount it out of hand is foolish and short sighted, and shows no evidence of having learned anything from history.
We should accept it, as a short term contract, making sure the RJs are on the property at competitive rates, and look to the future where growth and market dominance can attempt to reverse the historic trend and give us more of the pie.
To claim "We want it back" is like demanding your youth back. It's never going to happen. Let's get real.

Life outside the bubble

Last week the government proclaimed the wonderful news that the jobless rate fell from 8.3% to 8.2%. Great. What they didn't tell you was that to achieve that statistic they simply stopped counting 1.2 million unemployed who have dropped off the radar and atre simply not working/not looking for work/effectively disappeared. There are fewer working now than last month. That's the ugly truth. There are fewer working now than in 2008. Plans by corporations for job cuts are up 28% from last year.
And your union is holding out for a better deal?
What's wrong with this picture?