UAL/CAL SLI hearings -- Cont'd from Day One:

[DontFeedTheBear]

LCAL's list put 147 furloughees and 2 newhires in front of mid/late-90s LUAL pilots who have never been furloughed. So it's not like being employed on MAD is sacrosanct to anyone.

The current CAL 147 furloughs are in the relative seniority range of the low 80's! They are enjoying line holder status, some furlough protection and better schedules. So they should be thrown to the bottom? Be careful what you wish for, there are 209 active UAL pilots that have a job only due to voluntary furloughs and UAL has started to call furloughs back. If you want to punish the CAL furloughs, you will be throwing some of your pilots under the bus too! As far as the 2 newhires, I have no idea why they are there.

I'm sure that UAL's list will represent the other end of the spectrum!

 

[DontFeedTheBear]

I'm curious how the CAL pilots think that longevity can be completely ignored now that Merger Policy specifically includes it? I could understand if you just wanted to put less weight on it, but it seems to be completely ignored in the CAL proposal, unless I'm missing something.

No dog in this hunt, but I am curious.

How much would you like to bet that the UAL list will not consider status and category, furloughed is a status!

 

[DontFeedTheBear]

That may be, but LCAL if I recall correctly, many of them had recall letters for more than a year before being recalled. So yes, a stunt. And recall letters do nothing to change status from furloughed to active. But again, the point's moot. In the Pinnacle-Mesaba-Colgan SLI, which occurred under the new ALPA policy, furloughed pilots were slotted above active pilots.

Anything can be a factor in SLI. The arbitrators can use any method they desire and place undue weight on anything they want.

YES, jet pilot furloughs from Mesaba were put ahead of jr Colgan pilots as per the award. The explanation is in the award. You should read the reason, it's apples and oranges from the UAl/CAL merger situation.

 

[DontFeedTheBear]

That may be, but LCAL if I recall correctly, many of them had recall letters for more than a year before being recalled. So yes, a stunt. And recall letters do nothing to change status from furloughed to active. But again, the point's moot. In the Pinnacle-Mesaba-Colgan SLI, which occurred under the new ALPA policy, furloughed pilots were slotted above active pilots.

Anything can be a factor in SLI. The arbitrators can use any method they desire and place undue weight on anything they want.

You are not recalling correctly, the recalls all had training dates within 6 months.

 

[PCL_128]

How much would you like to bet that the UAL list will not consider status and category, furloughed is a status!

I guess that's possible. But reading Jeff's pre-hearing brief, I wasn't left with the impression that they would try to completely ignore it. In any case, I'm sure neither side will make a proposal that is truly fair and what the arbitrators will select in the end, but I did find it strange that the CAL side is pretty much completely throwing out longevity, when Merger Policy requires its consideration now.

 

[DontFeedTheBear]

I guess that's possible. But reading Jeff's pre-hearing brief, I wasn't left with the impression that they would try to completely ignore it. In any case, I'm sure neither side will make a proposal that is truly fair and what the arbitrators will select in the end, but I did find it strange that the CAL side is pretty much completely throwing out longevity, when Merger Policy requires its consideration now.

Spot on! I think both sides will use the aspects of the policy that suits them! Also, who is Jeff?

 

[PCL_128]

Also, who is Jeff?

Jeff Freund, the UAL committee's merger attorney.

 

[DontFeedTheBear]

Jeff Freund, the UAL committee's merger attorney.

OK, got it now. Yes, they will definitely use status and category, especially to protect widebody seats. They will most probably disregard status and category when it comes to furloughs. We shall see next week. I'm not gonna get wrapped around the axle. Both sides are going to put forth their dreamlists.

 

[taxicabdriver]

My 2 cents... Relative seniority at MAD

 

[Andy]

The current CAL 147 furloughs are in the relative seniority range of the low 80's! They are enjoying line holder status, some furlough protection and better schedules. So they should be thrown to the bottom? Be careful what you wish for, there are 209 active UAL pilots that have a job only due to voluntary furloughs and UAL has started to call furloughs back. If you want to punish the CAL furloughs, you will be throwing some of your pilots under the bus too! As far as the 2 newhires, I have no idea why they are there.

I'm sure that UAL's list will represent the other end of the spectrum!

You're taking this way too seriously. I don't care much how things end up on the final list. I don't wish for anything; just trying to keep it real. That's a tall task when each side wants to bend the facts to fit their advantage, as you are currently doing with suggesting a 2013 snapshot.

I don't care what the 147 LCAL furloughees on MAD are doing today. Will the arbitrators? Maybe. Maybe they'll choose a snapshot date in 2013. Maybe they'll choose a snapshot date in 2008. There's precedence for both extremes.

So you can talk about how they're now lineholders all you want but it doesn't mean squat if the arbitrators don't care about a 2013 snapshot.

Now let's say the arbitrators decide on a 2010 snapshot (most likely scenario). Those 147 will end up being integrated below almost all of the LUAL furloughees. I doubt that any of them will be placed in front of any 1997 LUAL pilot.

Feel free to get your panties in a bunch over this stuff. You have zero control over it, which is exactly the same amount of control that I have over it. So I learned quite a while ago to not care about the outcome. I recommend that you do the same.