Merged CAL/UAL seniority lists
05-21-2010, 06:30 AM
#152
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Posts: 111
...and we have been specifically asked by our respective leadership to not negotiate in public, hypothetical or otherwise.
It is out of our hands. And we will all be pi$$ed. Things were going well prior to the announcement and all of our furloughs should be back very soon. Now lets hope the UAL guys get back sometime very soon also and do the mainline flying that they were originally hired to do.
It is out of our hands. And we will all be pi$$ed. Things were going well prior to the announcement and all of our furloughs should be back very soon. Now lets hope the UAL guys get back sometime very soon also and do the mainline flying that they were originally hired to do.
05-21-2010, 09:46 AM
#153
Not retiring avatar
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Position: 777 CAP
Posts: 768
I don't mean it to be incendiary.
I ask it in the spirit of brotherhood, is there a compromise we can live with?
I have an idea that I think would be fair(er) to both sides, but I'd like to hear others' ideas first.
I ask it in the spirit of brotherhood, is there a compromise we can live with?
I have an idea that I think would be fair(er) to both sides, but I'd like to hear others' ideas first.
05-21-2010, 12:42 PM
#154
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 32
See. That's what I'm afraid of.... a misunderstanding. I didn't say that Monkey's question was incendiary. And Coto, I agree with you. It is "hardly incendiary".
I stated, "discussions of this nature can be counterproductive and possibly incendiary."
What is to be gained by proposing that A should come before B, for such and such a reason? (Or, that B should come before A for such and such a reason)? Do you think that the discussions will in any way affect the final outcome?
On a recent flight, I listened to my coworker as he worked himself into a fit of worry. What was accomplished? He wore himself down, and broke my concentration on the Sudoku.
I'll be leaving it up to the merger teams. Best wishes-
I stated, "discussions of this nature can be counterproductive and possibly incendiary."
What is to be gained by proposing that A should come before B, for such and such a reason? (Or, that B should come before A for such and such a reason)? Do you think that the discussions will in any way affect the final outcome?
On a recent flight, I listened to my coworker as he worked himself into a fit of worry. What was accomplished? He wore himself down, and broke my concentration on the Sudoku.
I'll be leaving it up to the merger teams. Best wishes-
06-01-2010, 05:48 PM
#155
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 67
I don't have an answer on how the longevity will be handled, but I do know that this variable in the equation is a "snapshot" that was taken of both list the date the merger was announced.
The "psychological" variable is more along career expectations. If the SLI gets to the arbitrator stage and it follows the time line of DAL/NWEST then we are looking at an arbitrator (actually board of 3) looking at integrating the list early Spring of 2011. If merging the list gets to this point, which I can only guess it will then the snapshot of April 2010 "longevity" will be weighed upon the career expectations of the 2 current pilot groups. CAL already is recalling and by Spring will be hiring off the street to fill vacancies due to the 787 in August.
The idea at CAL is that they will hire the furloughs from UA, this makes for a very interesting scenario!
The "psychological" variable is more along career expectations. If the SLI gets to the arbitrator stage and it follows the time line of DAL/NWEST then we are looking at an arbitrator (actually board of 3) looking at integrating the list early Spring of 2011. If merging the list gets to this point, which I can only guess it will then the snapshot of April 2010 "longevity" will be weighed upon the career expectations of the 2 current pilot groups. CAL already is recalling and by Spring will be hiring off the street to fill vacancies due to the 787 in August.
The idea at CAL is that they will hire the furloughs from UA, this makes for a very interesting scenario!
06-02-2010, 11:03 AM
#156
Not retiring avatar
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Position: 777 CAP
Posts: 768
EASY Fellas!
Originally Posted by Monkeyfly
Before I ask the question, I would like to say that getting all worked up at each other about seniority is somewhere between whistling dixie and spitting into the wind.
But I would like to hear what you have to say...
(If you can answer in the spirit of unity, without ultimatums or rants)
But I would like to hear what you have to say...
(If you can answer in the spirit of unity, without ultimatums or rants)
- Assuming that the CAL merger committee and their lawyer argue for UAL furloughs to be placed behind active pilots, and the UAL merger side argues for some sort of longevity recognition for furloughed/junior pilots; and the mediator/arbitrator comes back to CAL and says, "You need to come off your position and come up with something that gives these pilots some credit for longevity."
Wow, almost 2000 views since I asked the question, and no answer. Well, maybe that's an answer in itself.
I appreciate the professionalism, though. No angry tirades or rants. Maybe there's hope for us all...
In any case, I do think there is a solution that works as a compromise, that protects both sets of junior pilots better. The question is, are we able to think outside the box?
06-02-2010, 01:17 PM
#158
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: B777 Capt
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by Monkeyfly
Whoa, pipe down! Don't all answer at once!
While ALPA likes to talk trash about mgmnt. They too are some of the most backstabbing people that will squash their best friend, to further themselves in the ALPA hierarchy. What you or I or anyone else thinks is fair and right doesn't matter. All of it will be bartered away for a "vote" to make some MEC member safe and secure in the new MEC of the combined carrier.
Sit back, relax and enjoy the ride as the ALPA gravy train starts eating itself and our futures.
L
06-06-2010, 05:13 PM
#159
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,709
Originally Posted by Lambourne
It really doesn't matter what any of us think. The mustache club at ALPA will be ones deciding our fates. This will most likely a political football that both the CAL and UAL MEC members use to barter their way into positions on the new MEC. It will have none of our common interest in mind. You have to remember that there will be a rationalization of MEC positions as a result of this merger. These guys will not give up the golden ring very easily. There will be a lot of back room deals to secure a position. Our interest will be their last concern, self preservation is job #1 for these guys first.
While ALPA likes to talk trash about mgmnt. They too are some of the most backstabbing people that will squash their best friend, to further themselves in the ALPA hierarchy. What you or I or anyone else thinks is fair and right doesn't matter. All of it will be bartered away for a "vote" to make some MEC member safe and secure in the new MEC of the combined carrier.
Sit back, relax and enjoy the ride as the ALPA gravy train starts eating itself and our futures.
L
While ALPA likes to talk trash about mgmnt. They too are some of the most backstabbing people that will squash their best friend, to further themselves in the ALPA hierarchy. What you or I or anyone else thinks is fair and right doesn't matter. All of it will be bartered away for a "vote" to make some MEC member safe and secure in the new MEC of the combined carrier.
Sit back, relax and enjoy the ride as the ALPA gravy train starts eating itself and our futures.
L
08-02-2010, 09:53 PM
#160
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 757/767 FO
Posts: 105
"With all do respect UAL brings pretty much nothing to the table. Crying, not salivating. Not one pilot at CAL wanted everything to do with this disaster (ok, maybe one)."
I am with you on this. As a United Pilot hired in 97, we had 10400 pilots on the list. Our management shrunk this airline in order to merge it. My career expectations have been harmed by this merger. UAL does not need CAL, it has all the route authority it needs. UAL management got its marching orders to shrink it to merge it. I for one would like to see this merger fail and you guys go your seperate way and UAL gets new marching orders with new management to grow the airline. That way you can have your career expectations and I can have mine. You can keep your bases of EWR, IAH, Guam, and CLE. We can keep all our bases and grow back to 10000k pilots and exercise our route authority that we have already like 11 cities in South America that we received from Pan Am etc.
So, in summary, I am not for this merger as you think many UAL are for. I would rather do without you guys.
I am with you on this. As a United Pilot hired in 97, we had 10400 pilots on the list. Our management shrunk this airline in order to merge it. My career expectations have been harmed by this merger. UAL does not need CAL, it has all the route authority it needs. UAL management got its marching orders to shrink it to merge it. I for one would like to see this merger fail and you guys go your seperate way and UAL gets new marching orders with new management to grow the airline. That way you can have your career expectations and I can have mine. You can keep your bases of EWR, IAH, Guam, and CLE. We can keep all our bases and grow back to 10000k pilots and exercise our route authority that we have already like 11 cities in South America that we received from Pan Am etc.
So, in summary, I am not for this merger as you think many UAL are for. I would rather do without you guys.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
