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

[Andy]

Can you give me a reasonable explanation for this? Besides the longevity argument, what about status/category and career expectations? How can you honestly see a furlough coming off the street to a Captain or senior FO position? So, a furlough comes back ahead of an active pilot, and now the company furloughs, should the originally active pilot now be furloughed instead of the previously furloughed pilot? I am not throwing flamebait, just looking for an honest explanation.

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.

 

[PCL_128]

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.

 

[list2002]

If it sounds crazy to put furloughed pilots ahead of someone who was on line at the announcement date, it sounds crazy to put furloughed pilots ahead of someone who was online at the announcement date. Regardless of which side you are talking about. I think that is the point of the 147 going ahead of some online UAL guys/gals on UCAL's statement.

 

[Andy]

If it sounds crazy to put furloughed pilots ahead of someone who was on line at the announcement date, it sounds crazy to put furloughed pilots ahead of someone who was online at the announcement date. Regardless of which side you are talking about. I think that is the point of the 147 going ahead of some online UAL guys/gals on UCAL's statement.

ALPA merger policy has changed. Since it's changed, the Pinnacle-Mesaba-Colgan list has been arbitrated. Furloughed pilots were slotted above active pilots.

There is also a lot of conjecture as to which date the arbitrators will use to construct their list. It could be much later than the MAD or it could be much earlier. Each side is currently presenting arguments that favor their respective seniority list. The arbitrators have wide latitude to choose a date other than MAD and there is precedent for them doing so.

No matter, the 3 arbitrators will be the ones to make the final list. There's a lot of cursing and gnashing of the teeth on both sides before the ruling (and for many years after) but it's all going to come down to the arbitrators.

 

[densoo]

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.

They already had recall letters in hand at MAD I believe. A stunt? Maybe. But legal lines often are. I suppose LUAL could have sent letters to its 1500 furloughed pilots notifying them of "recall at some undetermined date" so they would have technically had them too. But then when LCAL actually recalled theirs within months and 3 years later LUAL has not might be a factor in SLI.

 

[Andy]

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.

From glancing at the transcripts, the LCAL argument goes something along the lines that it's impossible to determine an LCAL pilot's actual longevity. Many, including LCAL MEC chair, use their CALEX DOH as their DOH. And that's in spite of him leaving the LCAL system for quite a while to work at Mesa. He has not had his longevity adjusted downward to reflect that time away for LCAL/CALEX.

 

[Andy]

They already had recall letters in hand at MAD I believe. A stunt? Maybe. But legal lines often are. I suppose LUAL could have sent letters to its 1500 furloughed pilots notifying them of "recall at some undetermined date" so they would have technically had them too. But then when LCAL actually recalled theirs within months and 3 years later LUAL has not might be a factor in SLI.

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.

 

[eaglesview]

From glancing at the transcripts, the LCAL argument goes something along the lines that it's impossible to determine an LCAL pilot's actual longevity. Many, including LCAL MEC chair, use their CALEX DOH as their DOH. And that's in spite of him leaving the LCAL system for quite a while to work at Mesa. He has not had his longevity adjusted downward to reflect that time away for LCAL/CALEX.

Funny the CAL argument includes these key words. Even the they understand and in fact argue DOH/longevity is relevant. Thanks guys.

 

[Andy]

Funny the CAL argument includes these key words. Even the they understand and in fact argue DOH/longevity is relevant. Thanks guys.

Eaglesview, the problem for LUAL pilots is that the arbitrators may decide to place very little weight on longevity due to being unable to determine LCAL longevity with any degree of certainty.
We can debate back and forth and urinate on each other over the SLI but it's entirely up to the arbitrators to decide how they will combine the two lists and the weighting they place on each criteria.

The two things that I am certain of is that most pilots will feel that they were sleighted by the arbitrators. And some will be angry over the combined list for the rest of their careers.
I won't be in the group that's angry for the rest of my career; there are far more important things in life than this job.

 

[eaglesview]

Eaglesview, the problem for LUAL pilots is that the arbitrators may decide to place very little weight on longevity due to being unable to determine LCAL longevity with any degree of certainty.
We can debate back and forth and urinate on each other over the SLI but it's entirely up to the arbitrators to decide how they will combine the two lists and the weighting they place on each criteria.

The two things that I am certain of is that most pilots will feel that they were sleighted by the arbitrators. And some will be angry over the combined list for the rest of their careers.
I won't be in the group that's angry for the rest of my career; there are far more important things in life than this job.

Andy, I just like stirring the pot, don't take my fun away from me!!!

DOH is clearly defined in ALPA policy.

 

[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.