Unical SLI is out...

[whymeworry?]

CAL '05/'06 hires merged in with UAL '98 hires is a 'slaughtering'?

If measuring seniority list integrations was from a purely DOH perspective then your questioning might hold water. But the reason these things go through a complex legal process, where both sides present their case, is because other important variables are added in (status/ category, career expectations, etc). A 1998 hire is super junior at UAL; or at least was until this award. He, or she, gains big, while that '05 hire moves backwards in actual percentage. So they move up (GAIN SENIORITY), we move back (LOSE SENIORITY) A windfall for the UAL group.

That and FURLOUGHED pilots, that is, those WITHOUT A JOB, get merged in with active. Again, a windfall. I don't see how the arbitrators saw it differently. But they did. So it is what it is.

And yet, I noticed they seem admit the "award" for our side is unfair anyway but so what. On page 23 they say:

"At the end of the day, despite our best efforts, we were unable to find a way to adjust or modify the CAL Committee's list build model to produce an acceptably fair and equitable ISL. Even with a different snapshot date, contrived differentials premised on post-merger changes inflating premerger career expectations still drive that ersatz ratioed model."


Like I said, it is what it is. A binding award that, unless fraud can be proved, cannot be overturned. Sooooooo...
Congrats to the UAL guys. They won, we lost. We move on from here.

But word to the gloaters, try to be professional. You don't need to point out the obvious.

 

[whatitdoing?]

Did you read number 7 on the Arbitration Award?
It should give you a little help for the next 5 years starting from today.

I can't find a link, so I'm clueless to their ruling. I only see the list.

 

[BID]

Currently at 62 percent relative seniority on the CAL side, now about 72 percent on the ISL. 2005 hire, mixd with UAL 1998 hires.

I feel like it's age 65 all over again! I knew it would be bad, but honestly didn't think it would be this bad. Deep down, I always felt the CAL proposal was too aggressive. We might of paid the price for that.

Anyway, time to move on. Congrats to the LUAL guys, see ya on line.

 

[johnsonrod]

Does the 5-year fence on the A350 begin once it is on property or does it start now (even though not here) and work out to 3 years after eventual delivery?

 

[waveflyer]

For one farking time can you two little boys run along and slap each other outside. The biggest SLI between two legacies occurred tonight and yet we still have to pass over Internet diarrhea from our resident DAL and LUV clowns! Exactly why FI has gone down the tubes in recent years.

This^^^ Other airlines can shut it for a few days on unrelated threads-

 

[canyonblue]

You've got the wrong guy PCL.

I was never scared of arby. What did you bring? Parking passes? Please.

I'd have to agree, I never feared any arbitrated award, in fact I thought we would have done better seniority wise. The only loss would have been the CA seats which wouldn't have affected me anyway.

 

[PCL_128]

Currently at 62 percent relative seniority on the CAL side, now about 72 percent on the ISL.

Yes, but what was your relative percentage on the merger announcement date compared to the new number?

 

[Furloughed80]

Another question for sUA people. How many voluntary furloughs were there?

 

[PCL_128]

I'd have to agree, I never feared any arbitrated award, in fact I thought we would have done better seniority wise. The only loss would have been the CA seats which wouldn't have affected me anyway.

Read this award and you'll see just why you should have been scared, and just why people like me were so adamant about going to arbitration. The CAL committee basically made the same arguments you guys have been making since this whole things started ("we make lots more money, our company is more stable, yada, yada, yada"), and the arbitrators basically tossed those arguments aside and said "yeah, that's nice and all, but both companies needed each other to prosper long-term, so we're calling it all a wash and only looking at seniority."

 

[chppr5]

Currently at 62 percent relative seniority on the CAL side, now about 72 percent on the ISL. 2005 hire, mixd with UAL 1998 hires.

I feel like it's age 65 all over again! I knew it would be bad, but honestly didn't think it would be this bad. Deep down, I always felt the CAL proposal was too aggressive. We might of paid the price for that.

Anyway, time to move on. Congrats to the LUAL guys, see ya on line.

Using what snapshot date? You have to use 10/2010 not the LCAL proposed 04/13 snapshot. You did not fall 10% using the correct snapshot date determined by the arbs. It is bacically a relitive sen list.

 

[list2002]

Weird that United furloughed guys holding 90% seniority there, most companies wait till they are at 100%.
Or: What was a furloughed united pilots relative seniority at 10/2010? And what is it now?

 

[rattler]

Using what snapshot date? You have to use 10/2010 not the LCAL proposed 04/13 snapshot. You did not fall 10% using the correct snapshot date determined by the arbs. It is bacically a relitive sen list.

Not true, not even close to relative. I was 71% system wide yesterday, 90% today (not counting the new hires). I bid 40% in BES, weekends and holidays off, 19 days off a month. Next month I will be a bottom line holder. This is a huge windfall for the UA pilots both in terms of money and schedule. Lots of furloughs have the seniority to bid CA now. I guess unemployed to Captain at someone else's expense is "fair and equitable"? Ya right.

 

[chppr5]

Not true, not even close to relative. I was 71% system wide yesterday, 90% today (not counting the new hires). I bid 40% in BES, weekends and holidays off, 19 days off a month. Next month I will be a bottom line holder. This is a huge windfall for the UA pilots both in terms of money and schedule. Lots of furloughs have the seniority to bid CA now. I guess unemployed to Captain at someone else's expense is "fair and equitable"? Ya right.

Yesterday??? What was your relitive sen 10/2010. THAT IS THE SNAPSHOT DATE, not yesterday, not last week not 4/2010.

 

[taxicabdriver]

Yesterday??? What was your relitive sen 10/2010. THAT IS THE SNAPSHOT DATE, not yesterday, not last week not 4/2010.

Then explain how a ual pilot can go from furloughed, without a job, in 2010 at mad to 75% on the new list..... Just doesn't add up.... The cal side got hosed big time

 

[whymeworry?]

Involuntary furloughs are nowhere close to holding Captain. Voluntary furloughs OTOH, some of them are. But they are COLA (company offered leave of absence) pilots, not "furloughed". They basically took leaves, to save a job. So they're not really considered furloughs in the classic sense of the word

 

[whymeworry?]

Then explain how a ual pilot can go from furloughed, without a job, in 2010 at mad to 75% on the new list..... Just doesn't add up.... The cal side got hosed big time

The man has a point.

 

[whatitdoing?]

My head hurts.........

 

[chppr5]

Then explain how a ual pilot can go from furloughed, without a job, in 2010 at mad to 75% on the new list..... Just doesn't add up.... The cal side got hosed big time

Because longevity was weighted 35% in the arbs decision. Have you even read the decision or just looked at the ISL? I guess that is hosed to you, hosed to me is losing 7 1/2 years longevity. Your RS as of 10/2005 should be very close to RS on the ISL. Also a voluntary furlough may be 25% but not an involuntary.

 

[PCL_128]

Then explain how a ual pilot can go from furloughed, without a job, in 2010 at mad to 75% on the new list..... Just doesn't add up.... The cal side got hosed big time

You should have read ALPA Merger Policy. Longevity is a component that is required to be included. I asked a few months ago why the CAL MC thought that they could get away with not including it at all, and nobody had an answer. Now we know what the result was.

 

[Crucianpilot]

Regardless, ALPA policy sucks. Written by a bunch of lawyers who have no friggin common sense. Someone who is not employed should never go ahead of an active employee. Now if they were voluntarily furloughed, that would not apply. As far as longevity, they can use that to establish other conditions such as pay, travel benefit position for non reving, etc. however, they should still be stapled after active pilots for the purpose of bidding a/c, schedule etc. Oh well, we have to live with it now. It is what it is.