Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Having pioneered the abuse of ALPA merger policy

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
What's wrong with a stovepipe CA/CA FO/FO integration? Would the results of that method be a departure from merger policy? You understand what that means and how the list would look?

It seems you might be confused about longevity vs. DOH. They are two different things and there is no problem with our list in this regard. The pilots that you have in question have the longevity that they do because they were involved in integrations. Your group's longevity numbers would look quite a bit different too, if you had always had the commitment to merger policy that you seem to now.

*To have the problem understanding this that you do, only further illustrates how little you know about what merger policy is and results in. Which is kinda crazy, because you act like it's the best thing ever, now.
 
Last edited:
What's wrong with a stovepipe CA/CA FO/FO integration? Would the results of that method be a departure from merger policy? You understand what that means and how the list would look?

It seems you might be confused about longevity vs. DOH. They are two different things and there is no problem with our list in this regard. The pilots that you have in question have the longevity that they do because they were involved in integrations. Your group's longevity numbers would look quite a bit different too, if you had always had the commitment to merger policy that you seem to now.

*To have the problem understanding this that you do, only further illustrates how little you know about what merger policy is and results in. Which is kinda crazy, because you act like it's the best thing ever, now.


OK, you're Mr Merger policy. The stove pipe doesn't work because we have many more F/O's due to the fact we have 3x's the jumbos as CAL. You have 22 777's, we have 76 747/777's, which mean we have MANY more augmented trips with 3 and 4 crew members, hence more F/O's. ALPA merger policy now includes longevity unlike when USAirways and AmWest merged. I know the difference between longevity and DOH it seems your merger comm may need a refresher course. DOH has everything to do with longevity, you have to have a start point for longevity. DOH with Britt, Bar Harbor and Express Jet is NOT the same as DOH at CAL. AND as your merger comm seems to think, flow back to Express Jet does not count as longevity at CAL! As I said before both sides will argue to represent their pilots. Why bother stirring the pot. We have no say in this. The arbitrators will decide. I guess you just love drama....
 
Well, I think it maybe helps to debate here. Test assumptions, float ideas. Honestly, the last exchange we had on here I was trying to gather some inspiration about what UAL brought to the merger. That was a good natured attempt that unfortunately failed.

I'm perfectly comfortable admitting we have fewer true widebody airplanes. But we have far from zero. Widebody CA is a very real career expectation for a big number of CAL pilots (especially widebody pay). If we do something other than stovepipe, at least the entire bottom third, or maybe even half our pilots won't fly one. And that is going to end up including the 787, since the fleet is the same as the 777. Can you honestly tell me that UAL brought so much to the merger that half the CAL pilots should give up that expectation?

And: So jumbo takes more FOs... I guess that's a negative (?). Anyway, they're your airplanes, do you think you just get to take the positives of a fleet and dump the negatives on us? It's merger policy. It has changed indeed, and it's not 1986. Prepare for some give and take. Your opener only takes.
 
We can talk about it, but the 3 people you need to convince are the 3 people on the arbitration panel. They will listen to testimony, review the proposed lists, review documents, and create a new list with an explanation. It can be nerve wracking, but that's called binding arbitration. Remember, these neutrals have nothing to gain but the fee that comes along with the process.


Bye Bye---General Lee
 
And: So jumbo takes more FOs... I guess that's a negative (?). Anyway, they're your airplanes, do you think you just get to take the positives of a fleet and dump the negatives on us? It's merger policy. It has changed indeed, and it's not 1986. Prepare for some give and take. Your opener only takes.



Really, and your opener welcomed us with open arms? GMAFB! I'm done wasting time with you. For the first time I agree with GL, but you like to come on here and stir the pot, or as you call it "debate". The title of this thread speaks volumes as to your thoughts about the UAL group. You paint us with a broad brush dating back to 1986, FAL and Roger Hall. I bet 85% of our guys couldn't pick Hall out of a group of 3, but hey, I'll play your game. If we think the way you do, all CAL pilots are scabs, I'm sorry, f*#%ing scabs, because you have 500+ within your ranks. Do us all a favor and stay in one of your garden spot domiciles IAH, EWR or CLE. We'd hate for you to lower yourself to actually have to work with a UAL pilot.
 
Leave to Flops to be the guy unable to keep his emotions under control during this process. I will suggest to the IAH CPO all FPA 's have a box of tissues for your use.
 
Well, I think it maybe helps to debate here. Test assumptions, float ideas.

And NONE of that has bearing here, or anywhere unless your on merger committee or one of the 3 arbitrators. Are you hoping to get called in as a special flight info web board specialist?

All this reminds me of sports fans arguing for their favorite team. Arguing about the play, or call, or eventually the outcome of the game. Drink your beer, cheer for the plays, or players, and when the game is over......live with the outcome. As I see it, we are not even finished with the 1st quarter.

GO BEARS!
 
Many opinions on this thread as we are all entitled to. In the end as has been stated numerous times, the arbitrators will make the decision and we will have to live with it. All of this senseless back and forth bickering serves no purpose other than to give ammunition to both sides in the fight for ultimate seniority. I would expect the final decision to be somewhat like the delta/northwest sli. Everyone remaining within a small percentage of where they are currently at on their respective seniority lists. Of course, it would depend on whether they are in the upper, middle or bottom portion of the list.
Personally, I would be happy just remaining on my current equipment and base. We shall see what happens soon enough. Good luck to us all.
 
And NONE of that has bearing here, or anywhere unless your on merger committee or one of the 3 arbitrators. Are you hoping to get called in as a special flight info web board specialist?

All this reminds me of sports fans arguing for their favorite team. Arguing about the play, or call, or eventually the outcome of the game. Drink your beer, cheer for the plays, or players, and when the game is over......live with the outcome. As I see it, we are not even finished with the 1st quarter.

GO BEARS!

Absolutly correct...

Bears Suck.........Go Eagles
 

Latest resources

Back
Top