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.