Originally Posted by astrojet
(Post 806017)
it was a while ago ...but I believe TWA was in chapter 11....then they declared chapter 7....so in theory AA purchased assets of the liquidated airline...this was never an actual merger....that is why the twa pilots were stapled to aa list. did twa actualy HAVE to declare chapter 7?? ...is the fishy part.
TWA was not in Ch 11 before purchase took place. AA required TWA to file for Ch 11 as a condition of the purchase. Regarding the integration/staple, APA molded it exactly the way an arbitrator would have - to withstand the eventual lawsuit, which it did. Fair, depends on who you ask. I'd say the majority of TWA pilots got hosed - but it was expected, much like the way anyone getting purchased by SWA will also get hosed seniority-wise. |
Originally Posted by southbound
(Post 806083)
I agree with most of what you say but have a hard time understanding how straight relative senority with fences is somehow on one end of the 'windfall' spectrum. Seems pretty middle of the road to me.
Even fences will not fix this problem as most of us who are under 60 are in this for the long haul. No one is going to put up a 25-year fence. Strict date-of-hire would not be fair either, as UAL's most junior active pilot (after the Tilton furlough) is several years senior to the most junior CAL Captain. As many have already said, it will not be strict DOH or strict relative seniority, but some conglomeration of both along with several other factors. |
Given the ALPA merger/frag policy and the fact that Bond/McCaskill requires it to be the rule book for ALPA/ALPA mergers, DoH won't even be considered.
|
Originally Posted by Fritzthepilot
(Post 806065)
Socal,
We all need to keep in mind that when these lists are published, and they will, no one really expects a straight date of hire integration. On the other hand, I would be very surprised if there was a straight relative seniority integration as well. |
Originally Posted by cactusdog16
(Post 806143)
Roughly 58% of UAL's fleet are widebodies
They gave up scope so bad that it caused furloughs of over 1000 and now they're the one with the premium fleet? |
Originally Posted by Fishfreighter
(Post 806166)
Given the ALPA merger/frag policy and the fact that Bond/McCaskill requires it to be the rule book for ALPA/ALPA mergers, DoH won't even be considered.
1. Status and category 2. Longevity 3. Career expectations So longevity, or date of hire, is a consideration. |
Originally Posted by yamahas3
(Post 806185)
This is only true because most of UAL's narrowbody fleet is outsourced.
They gave up scope so bad that it caused furloughs of over 1000 and now they're the one with the premium fleet? This is going to be a major issue with the SLI. With furloughs back to 1999 and guys at CAL hired in 2006 and 7 holding widebodies (not sure what a stovepipe works out to), I'm glad I'm watching this from the outside. |
|
Originally Posted by yamahas3
(Post 806185)
This is only true because most of UAL's narrowbody fleet is outsourced.
They gave up scope so bad that it caused furloughs of over 1000 and now they're the one with the premium fleet? |
Originally Posted by yamahas3
(Post 806185)
This is only true because most of UAL's narrowbody fleet is outsourced.
They gave up scope so bad that it caused furloughs of over 1000 and now they're the one with the premium fleet? Either way, the career expectations of UAL and CAL pilots differ because of this, regardless of past issues with scope, furloughs, etc. A straight relative seniority integration would be no less of a windfall for the CAL pilots than a straight DOH integration would be for those at UAL. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:32 PM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands