Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
What's the "Latest and Greatest" at UAL/CAL? >

What's the "Latest and Greatest" at UAL/CAL?

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

What's the "Latest and Greatest" at UAL/CAL?

Old 08-04-2010, 07:03 PM
  #351  
Keep Calm Chive ON
 
SoCalGuy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Default

Originally Posted by LeeFXDWG View Post
I have no idea what world the CAL MEC is living in our what semantics they are playing.

Here it is from the rule book (not the old merger stuff Capt Bligh likes to quote). PID is the same as merger announcement date (2 May I believe). Remember, this is just the snap shot. Has nothing to do with the SLI but rather lays out the playing field to begin from.

And, if you want to read the whole (new) merger/frag policy, you'll see that JCBA occurs before SLI period. While both MEC's are granted latitude to have a mutual agreement to stray from the guidlines, why would they want to? Based on the tTA, the new process seems to be working.

Here's the link to the CURRENT policy manual. Alpa > Alpa Login

Frats,
Lee
Lee.....

Not sure I understand your point?? If you thumb back in the thread, as of yesterday there was a UAL Pilot who stated that the "Snap Shot" has been taken.....Kinda interested where the UAL Camp pulls that intel?? It's been pointed before that Jay Pierce (CAL's MEC Chair) went on recorded record (with details) during the TownHall yesterday confirming that the above info is 'bunk'.....no Snap-Shot has been taken as of yesterday morning.

During the same conference call, it was stated by the CAL MEC that the M.C.'s from both carrier's met up in SFO just this past week to exchange the verified lists......that being the case, along with simple math.....that exchange took place well outside the "60 Day" window ("MAD" of May 2nd or 3rd??) that's prescribed in the Merger/Frag Policy in which you high-lighted. I guess they are 'straying' from the prescribed policy already??

Just curious & NOT meant to come across as flame material.....If the CAL MEC is holding formal Q&A/info sessions for the the CAL pilot group, has the UAL MEC held any type of formal Informational Forum/Town Hall to address/or clarify what's been going on in the process up to this point?? If so, I'd be very interested to see if both MEC's are laying out 'like' factual info, and staying away from speculation.
SoCalGuy is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 02:46 AM
  #352  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 363
Default

SoCalGuy-

I really think this all comes down to semantics. Our side (no I don't think Wendy is on record specifically saying the snapshot has been taken, yet) sees the definition of snapshot fulfilled, as defined by ALPA policy and EVERY OTHER merger ever done (I'm pretty sure of this, but somebody chime in if I'm wrong). For CAL to use any date after May 2 is just about as ridiculous as UAL using any date before and BOTH sides are smoking some serious crack if they think that anything other than May 2 will not create a major issue with the other. I'm NOT saying that both sides couldn't both agree on using something else, so long as it benefits both sides for some remote reason I can't think of.

I truly don't think either MEC is trying to be misleading. For the most part it sounds like SLI is on pause as they focus on the JCBA so this may not even be addressed for awhile.

As far as when they exchanged lists, don't think the exchange date matters, the lists were based on data as of May 2. Both sides have the same list and they are the same, with data from May 2. Not sure how one side could arbitrarily change either side at this point. Then again, I'm just a line guy and not a labor attorney.

If you hear a better explanation from your side please post it here. We'll do the same. Hope this confusion gets cleared up before it creates an issue. Both MEC's should be doing a better job being VERY clear on this issue. We all really need to be pulling from the same end of the rope going forward.

Fraternally-
kc135driver is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 05:26 AM
  #353  
Keep Calm Chive ON
 
SoCalGuy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Default

KC-

Thanks for the info/explanation. In the end, one things for sure....I'm sure we'll have to agree to disagree, thus tipping back pints from there

Originally Posted by kc135driver View Post
For CAL to use any date after May 2 is just about as ridiculous as UAL using any date before and BOTH sides are smoking some serious crack if they think that anything other than May 2 will not create a major issue with the other.
If it made ANY sense to use other than the 'M.A.D.' (May 3rd for the merger consideration), then how come during this transaction the Stock Prices used for the stock swap were not dated 'some other date' years back?? We didn't see them use some random date 'dated' two yrs ago when/if they were seriously speaking about merging when Larry was aboard. They used 'current stock numbers' from the Friday (2 days prior) prior to the announcment made Monday the 3rd.

REGARDLESS....We both know that your argument, and my argument are MOOT points. The Arbitrator can/will choose some date that 'he/she' (the panel) feel appropriate in this case, and so arbitration will go.....pretty simple.

Originally Posted by kc135driver View Post
As far as when they exchanged lists, don't think the exchange date matters, the lists were based on data as of May 2. Both sides have the same list and they are the same, with data from May 2. Not sure how one side could arbitrarily change either side at this point. Then again, I'm just a line guy and not a labor attorney.
Again....like you, "Just a Line Pilot here" In "Lee's" post above, it was cited the "New" Frag/Merger Policy (in which 'he' high-lighted in red) the 60 Day exchange of verification on the respective lists. In what I wrote following that post, I was pointing out that if this was the case per policy, it was NOT being followed if the two groups just met last week in SFO to exchange the verified lists as confirmed my CAL's MEC Chair two days ago....nothing more, nothing less.

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify what's been said/heard within your Camp....I was just doing much the same from what we heard first hand 2 days ago. I'm sure as time evolves, there will be plenty of rumor/speculation mixed in with 'facts' that are directly disseminated from our respective MEC's. As hard as it can be, I for one will try my best to listen to what the MECs say as far as fact, and attempt to stay away from rumor/myth/or conjecture!

Cheers....SC
SoCalGuy is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 05:52 AM
  #354  
Gets Weekends Off
 
EWRflyr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: 737 CAPT
Posts: 1,879
Default

Originally Posted by SoCalGuy View Post
In what I wrote following that post, I was pointing out that if this was the case per policy, it was NOT being followed if the two groups just met last week in SFO to exchange the verified lists as confirmed my CAL's MEC Chair two days ago....nothing more, nothing less.

Cheers....SC
This has been misinterpreted I believe. While the MCs did meet in SFO to discuss the list, the truth is the lists were exchanged sometime ago. I asked the CAL MEC chairman about this more than a week ago and he indicated the lists had already been exchanged. Both MCs were going over the lists to develop questions as to the methodology and information provided on the lists for when they next would meet (I guess this week in SFO).
EWRflyr is offline  
Old 08-05-2010, 06:36 AM
  #355  
Keep Calm Chive ON
 
SoCalGuy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Default

Originally Posted by EWRflyr View Post
This has been misinterpreted I believe. While the MCs did meet in SFO to discuss the list, the truth is the lists were exchanged sometime ago. I asked the CAL MEC chairman about this more than a week ago and he indicated the lists had already been exchanged. Both MCs were going over the lists to develop questions as to the methodology and information provided on the lists for when they next would meet (I guess this week in SFO).
If that is the fact, I do apologize for mis-speaking.

Going back to the CAL MEC website and briefly reviewing the phone recording at the 51:00+ mark, "J.J." (caller) is speaking with JP on the M.C. process & meeting between the two groups in SFO. With that info, and along with local rep's info that I received, I was in the understanding that they met within the last week or two to exchange verified list's. As far as any firm future meeting scheduled in SFO, that was not directly touch on in the call, just the past meeting with the phone info above. With that said, we all know there will be some form of future meetings between the two M.C.'s involved. After all, future meetings are expected in a negotiating process process such as this.

Either way, up to this point, we know the list have been exchanged and that's the bottom line......regardless if it was within the 60 Days or not.

Appreciate the info and insight.
SoCalGuy is offline  
Old 08-06-2010, 02:55 PM
  #356  
Gets Weekends Off
 
LeeFXDWG's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B737 CAPT IAH
Posts: 1,129
Default

Originally Posted by SoCalGuy View Post
Lee.....

Not sure I understand your point?? If you thumb back in the thread, as of yesterday there was a UAL Pilot who stated that the "Snap Shot" has been taken.....Kinda interested where the UAL Camp pulls that intel?? It's been pointed before that Jay Pierce (CAL's MEC Chair) went on recorded record (with details) during the TownHall yesterday confirming that the above info is 'bunk'.....no Snap-Shot has been taken as of yesterday morning.

During the same conference call, it was stated by the CAL MEC that the M.C.'s from both carrier's met up in SFO just this past week to exchange the verified lists......that being the case, along with simple math.....that exchange took place well outside the "60 Day" window ("MAD" of May 2nd or 3rd??) that's prescribed in the Merger/Frag Policy in which you high-lighted. I guess they are 'straying' from the prescribed policy already??

Just curious & NOT meant to come across as flame material.....If the CAL MEC is holding formal Q&A/info sessions for the the CAL pilot group, has the UAL MEC held any type of formal Informational Forum/Town Hall to address/or clarify what's been going on in the process up to this point?? If so, I'd be very interested to see if both MEC's are laying out 'like' factual info, and staying away from speculation.
I'm out of the fight so don't have real time info.

Again, I think it is a matter of semantics. The snap shot, so to speak, has been taken. The lists on the MAD have been made, verified and exchanged. Those lists verified all active and furloughed pilots and there seat/status. There can be no change to that list. Any additions, such as new-hires, will be added after both those lists are combined on the ISL.

Again, the MEC's can change the prescribed order/timeline of events, but based on the confirmation I provided about 2 weeks after the MAD, UAL MEC is going by the letter of the policy.

The point of the snap shot has nothing to do with the ISL negotiation other than establish the playing field. It is to verify who is who (fleet, seat, seniority, active, furlough, etc.). Whether guys/gals like it or not, your status is what you verified for the exchanged lists. i.e. if your a voluntary furlough 97 UAL hire like me, then thats where you are on the list. If you are a 147 CAL furlough that gets recalled tomorrow, you're still a furloughed CAL pilot regarding the snap shot used for the ISL negotiation baseline from the snap-shot.

Guys/gals, nothing is fair all the time. This is, however, the process.

Personally, if I was on the UAL side of negotiations, I wouldn't care much about the 147 at CAL regarding their impact on ISL. THAT'S BECAUSE THE SCOPE RECOVERY AND FIXING SECTION 1 OF THE CONTRACT WOULD DO MORE FOR THE CONTRACT AND A PILOT'S CAREER THAN ANY NUMBER I COULD GET IN SECTION 3 AND REQUIRE EVERYONE TO BE RECALLED IN SHORT ORDER.

Yes, I meant to yell! Not at you, just yell that out because that is why UA pilots are for the most part where they are today in the big scheme of things. Sure, BK and 911 did serious harm, which was only compounded by allowing the erosion of scope to continue and protect the senior...... Our first significant "enhancement" to outsourcing happened during the famed C2000 (voted no). We gave up more scope to help secure a 28% widebody raise (20ish for the narrowbody guys).

It is either about all of us, equally, or in the end, it will be about none of us.

Frats, and not trying to flame on anyone either.

Lee
LeeFXDWG is offline  
Old 08-06-2010, 03:17 PM
  #357  
Gets Weekends Off
 
shiznit's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Default

WHO CARES about the snapshot!!!!! Seriously,

None of that matters until the joint contract is signed sealed and delivered.....Stay together now, fight it out later once you have the money and your QOL!!!!
shiznit is offline  
Old 08-07-2010, 12:14 PM
  #358  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 363
Default

One thing for sure, a JCBA which pushes scope WAY they heck back, better work rules and a big fat raise can make any ISL easier to digest. We have to step back and look at the bigger picture rather than getting into "petty" (and I lose this word VERY delicately) arguments about who was hired when or who status is higher. Life doesn't work out exactly like everybody wants all the time. Personally I'm okay with a compromise and I think it is ALPA's best interest to keep the peace between the two sides. We all have given back to both of these companies over the past decade and it is time for repayment first!

Bottom line, without a good JCBA stopping the RJ menace it doesn't matter how the SIL goes for anybody!

Cheers-
kc135driver is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Guard Dude
Delta
201720
04-06-2022 06:59 AM
shua757
Major
2
02-24-2009 06:44 AM
chris1987
Major
16
02-09-2009 01:46 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices