United and Continental Talking....

[imadumbpilot]

Patriot:

Is 01 CAL CA a real number? Or is it more of an indicator of how bad reserve is? I know ther ARE CAs with that DOH but, compare it with lineholder seniority. Furthermore, does the 01 CAL CA want to be a 2011 757 CA? Or a 2021 777 CA with a line of time? Because if we act too tough on the bottom CA seniority then UAL is going to get real tough on the widebody flying. And they will clean our plow on that.

We could exceed an unlimited budget, take years of arbitration, make a bunch of lawyers ridiculously wealthy, and if things go absolutely perfect, have a resulting combined list that looks very close to DOH with a possible wiggle on years of service. Not before we hate each other, disenfranchise the customers, disgust Wall Street, and all manner of other detriments.

Why not do this: DOH, with adjustment for years of service, no furlough clause for CAL, UAL furloughs return and bid new composite seniority number until hiring starts. And substantial hiring will start quickly IMHO, probably within a quarter. And we all enjoy the spoils of a great airline job going forward.

To a certain extent, we ALL have to view this kind of like a start up.

That '01 captain is just as real as the most junior captain at any legacy. Generally speaking alot of guys bypass upgrades for QOL. Date of Hire is not one of the criterea for used in ALPA merger policy which has been highlited here. Just take a look at our seniority list and you can see the '86 hire dates ahead in seniority of the '84 hire dates. How do you rectify this as a DOH when trying to combine the seniority lists? You could just as easily screw over the top 1500 pilots as well as the bottom 1000 guys with a DOH formula.

Tell you what, lets let the merger committees do their job (if it ever comes to that) and use the ALPA merger policy as a guide line.

 

[Flopgut]

It doesn't matter why there are '01 DOH CAs here (RSV sucks and for god sake, we're talking Newark here), doing a DOH (or even a quasi DOH with wiggle room) would be screwing over a solid 25% of CAL's seniority list.

DOH and I go from about 4200 out of 4800, which is the bottom 13% and moving up very rapidly due to 5-6% of the pilots retiring each year, to 12900 out of 13500, which is the bottom 4% of the combine seniority list of an airline whose pilots are retiring at 2.5% a year. Double the size, half the retirement rate.. sounds like a great plan.

Please consider:

If we had another flush bid at CAL prior to a merger what do you think the bottom CA seniority numbers would be? (I'd say 15%+ change)

In your above scenario figure in years of service too. Might put you more like 10%. BUT, you have to be careful with this. These UAL pilots are furloughed but they have a DOH and it's important to respect. Properly regard them now, and they will properly regard your full seniority when it's your chance to fly the widebody.

Where do you think you'll be after years of arbitration? Seriously, run that scenario, what do you think you SHOULD get? I mean, why are you complaining about the growth rate of the combined airline? That's going to be the same for everyone, how's that srewing you? Are you trying to say arbitration should secure a better growth rate just for you?

If you can't look at this deal and see that both companies NEED pilots, the merged airline will have a HUGE strategic advantage, and that it's a win/win if it's a clean intergration, then I don't know what to tell you. I understand what your saying, for the most part you never want to give up any numbers. But for THIS deal? I think it's worth it.

 

[Flopgut]

Tell you what, lets let the merger committees do their job (if it ever comes to that) and use the ALPA merger policy as a guide line.

OK. Which ALPA merger policy do you want to use? The current one that's corrupted and continuously changing, or would you like to use an earlier version better suited to this scenario and that worked better in the first place? Our committies will listen to our input.

 

[densoo]

Which leadership change were you talking about? The one last year or the one in this email I got today! (or the one next week or next month or next year):





I was talking about the new IAH reps to take office in March. Now combined with the EWR reps our two largest bases have very strong, forward looking reps who are not afraid to make tough aggressive decisions. I was suprised by the MEC officers annoucement and I respect their decision.

Back during the IACP days we had a very strong leadership but an inherently week union with little or no resoucres. Then we brought in ALPA and all of it's muscle and we elected weak leaders (Contract 02 disaster) supported by a ununifed membership.

The leadership doesn't worry me. I think the people who get in those positions are hard-working and more selfless than me. What worries me is a pilot group that can't make up its mind and either votes them out or pressures them out before they've had a chance to accomplish anything.

 

[whymeworry?]

ALPA merger policy once included DOH and length of service criteria. It's been "refined" over the years. With NWA/REP they added a career expectations metric. DOH is very simple, keeping it simple drives the sharks nuts and that's a good thing. The airlines have similiar fundamentals, it's not entirely inappropriate to suggest we skip arbitration and take a look at some version of DOH. We have to ask ourselves: what kind of airline do we want on the other side of this deal? By all accounts, the combination of these two airlines is supposed to be a VERY lucrative business. Do we want to screw it up and make it like NWA?

I suppose you could pick the date you want to use.

Talk about keeping it simple... and sharky. Of course a UAL pilot is going to want DOH. We all know UAL hired 5000 pilots in the 90s and CALs hiring boom was more like late 97 through today. So of course a UAL pilot is going to claim DOH. Career expectations are INDEED part of the ALPA merger policy. You can't say you are a unionist, support ALPA policy, and want to "work together" then ignore the parts of the policy that make things fair. If UAL were to go DOH, over a third of CAL pilots would get the major shaft. You will have divisiveness until the end of time if that were to occur. You can't have it both ways. Either accept ALPA policy or show your true stripes. ALPA merger policy is the most fair and equitable approach to the process, hence it's well-thought protocal.

 

[whymeworry?]

If you can't look at this deal and see that both companies NEED pilots, the merged airline will have a HUGE strategic advantage, and that it's a win/win if it's a clean intergration, then I don't know what to tell you. I understand what your saying, for the most part you never want to give up any numbers. But for THIS deal? I think it's worth it.

Isn't that a bit ignorant of the realities of this business, or at the least bit presumptious? For example, we are most suredly facing a change in the retirement age at some point in the not-too-future (that will shutdown movement for 5 yrs), we are one 9/11 type event from a 50% capacity pulldown, we are one SARS outbreak from a major travel industry shutdown. Just today the FBI warned the country to expect attacks (again) once the blind freak (supposed-sheik) dies. Point being, the need for pilots can vanish at a moments notice. Just ask "T-way" pilots about this. There isn't a shortage now and there never will be.

Don't lecture me about the long-term benefits of flying a widebody as a reward for going soley with DOH. I fly widebodies now, big deal. I don't see why 1/3 of the CAL pilots should go straight to the bottom of such a list just because of the reasons you mention. Just as I respect UAL pilots DOH, so too should they respect our issues under the guidelines of ALPA merger policy. And it is simply that specific policy that is all we are suggesting here.

 

[imadumbpilot]

OK. Which ALPA merger policy do you want to use? The current one that's corrupted and continuously changing, or would you like to use an earlier version better suited to this scenario and that worked better in the first place? Our committies will listen to our input.

I'm thinking the current one. Since the past ones are no longer in effect. You really don't get to choose the version you want the last time I checked.

Oh, and by the way, the last time the merger policy was amended was at the behest of the Continental pilot group making the arbitrator the sole decider of the combined list and the 2 pilot neutrals simply advisers.

 

[Flopgut]

Talk about keeping it simple... and sharky. Of course a UAL pilot is going to want DOH. We all know UAL hired 5000 pilots in the 90s and CALs hiring boom was more like late 97 through today. So of course a UAL pilot is going to claim DOH. Career expectations are INDEED part of the ALPA merger policy. You can't say you are a unionist, support ALPA policy, and want to "work together" then ignore the parts of the policy that make things fair. If UAL were to go DOH, over a third of CAL pilots would get the major shaft. You will have divisiveness until the end of time if that were to occur. You can't have it both ways. Either accept ALPA policy or show your true stripes. ALPA merger policy is the most fair and equitable approach to the process, hence it's well-thought protocal.

OK. You're completely obsessed with the DOH part and ignoring the years of service part. Get the car key out of you're ear and think that over.

ALPA merger policy worked better when it included DOH. It was specifically removed when large airlines (with more control of ALPA) were worried about gobbling up small airlines with long term employees. Don't tell me I'm not a unionist because I happen to understand the history of merger policy. I can remember when it included DOH criteria and it worked better.

There is going to be lawsuits either way. Might as well make it the simplest terms right from the start rather than have years and millions of dollars of legalise as fodder for lawyers. Seriously, arbitration has a 50/50 chance of bettering a junior CAL pilot by maybe 1-3% but will result in a fence on 75% of widebody flying.

 

[whymeworry?]

OK. You're completely obsessed with the DOH part and ignoring the years of service part. Get the car key out of you're ear and think that over.

ALPA merger policy worked better when it included DOH. It was specifically removed when large airlines (with more control of ALPA) were worried about gobbling up small airlines with long term employees. Don't tell me I'm not a unionist because I happen to understand the history of merger policy. I can remember when it included DOH criteria and it worked better.

There is going to be lawsuits either way. Might as well make it the simplest terms right from the start rather than have years and millions of dollars of legalise as fodder for lawyers. Seriously, arbitration has a 50/50 chance of bettering a junior CAL pilot by maybe 1-3% but will result in a fence on 75% of widebody flying.

OK, I guess I'm not understanding what you mean when you refer to years of svc vs. DOH. Do you mean yrs of svc pertaining to the merged CAL pilots of the 80s (NYAir, PEX, Frontier, CALEX, TX Air, etc.) and how that will be more significant than DOH? Not sure what you mean here. Car keys in ear!

And, btw, I'm not attacking your unionist stride, just pointing to CURRENT ALPA merger policy and how we have to take that into account as the sole working protocal. I have friends high up in ALPA who keep quoting merger events of the 70s or 80s as a scare tactic to guys in my position. That's past history. And it's because of that history that the ALPA merger policy was even rewritten in the first place... oh and I'm told that it was ironically a UAL pilot who authored it.

 

[Flopgut]

Years of service meaning:

How many total years of service combined with DOH.

CAL pilot has five years since DOH and 5 years svc=composite score 10

UAL pilot has five years since DOH and <1 years svc=compsite score 6

Formulate intergration based on the scores