Originally Posted by
cadetdrivr
Two points:
1) The "virtual merger" with CAL did happen in 2008 and put into motion all of the pieces on the chess board that allowed the actual merger to happen (i.e. sail through DOT and DOJ review). This included systemwide code-sharing and the actual combination and/or coordination of certain departments long before the legal merger actually occurred. From a pilot perspective, UAL and CAL suddenly didn't compete on more than a handful of mainline routes as a result of the preparations...just ask a CAL or UAL commuter that suddenly lost mainline service to their base while the other company did the flying.
2) UAL was contractually required (per the Star agreement as a consequence of the failed 2000 merger attempt) to first have discussions with USAir before merging with anybody. It was theater, but UAL had to cross the "t's" and dot the "i's".
That is a straw man argument. I don't know of any UAL pilots that think they should suddenly go from F/O (or furloughed) and bump a CAL pilot out of the left seat.
What they are making a lot of noise about, however, is pay for longevity (i.e. match the current DAL contact) where the hourly pay rate is determined by DOH. This is a totally separate issue than longevity for SLI and would benefit pilots on both sides of the fence who experienced any time on furlough since 9/11.
1) I understand how it kinda seemed like a merger with the new code share, but if this argument were true then we were already "virtually" merged with DL/NWA at the time being in Skyteam. This is the nature of code sharing, but this was the first time a code share partner as large as CAL had ever changed alliances.
2) I've never heard that argument about USAir. I question the validity of that rumor since back in 2008, UAL approached CAL first, then USAir after being turned down. In 2010, it was just the opposite.
For pay purposes, I support any and all furloughs receiving pay for longevity purposes, the SLI is a whole different ball of wax.
Maybe its just my perception, but it seems to me from posts on this board that there are number of members at UAL on APC that think they will go from furlough to a nice lineholder on their choice of base/equipment or from reserve FO to Captain based on them throwing out any mention of a DOH-type SLI for the bottom part of the seniority integration. That's exactly how a DOH scenario would turn out. Perhaps most of these guys are throwing out flame-bait, or perhaps they are really delusional to believe this is going to happen. Are union reps at UAL feeding this or is this self-induced wishful thinking.
I'm still curious if anyone has ever seen an SLI where a furloughed pilot was placed in front of an active pilot on an SLI. From what I understand, that would be unprecedented and has never happened at any airline, but I'm still waiting for one example, let alone a big enough example to hold up to an arbitrator.
From what I gather, some people on this board wants an arbitrator to break over 50 years of past precedence so that they can get a "windfall" over the active CAL guys.
Whatever happens happens, but I really hope that UAL union members aren't suggesting what some people on here are posting, because if they are, those reps are going to have a lot of "splainin" to do after the SLI when the torches and pitchforks come out.