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.