The squawking by and for the furloughees on the longevity issue has been loud and plentiful. I am quite sure many folks, regardless of the merit of the argument, are getting a little tired of the issue. Frankly, I'm weary of it all too. It is not my goal to go down that road. My goal is to:
1) Keep all the of UAL pilots in mind as to how this particular situation affects us as a whole group.
2) Make sure the point is out there for all to consider in their personal evaluation of the TA.
I think it's terribly important, actually crucial, to remember what ALPA merger policy is and to keep in mind how relative seniority played out in the DAL and USAir SLI, changes in policy notwithstanding.
The plight of the Furloughees has the very real potential to affect EVERY SINGLE PILOT at UAL. This is especially important given that we have ALREADY risked disadvantaging ourselves vis-a-vis pay banding.
This maneuver has set up more than a small probability of the 1999-2001 furloughees to be stapled behind the 2005- 2008 hires at CAL. In essence then, the integration could start with the 2008 hires at CAL slotted with the bottom UAL pilots starting at the AUG 1999 hire date and then move up the list from there.
CAL has approximately 1500 hires from 2005-2008, so this group could potentially be integrated with 1996-1999 hires here. The relative seniority matches if the furloughed group gets stapled. If that wasn't bad enough, consider the demographics of the CAL group. They are, for the most part, 10-20 years younger than the opposing UAL group. For the '96-'99 folks, if there is a staple, a significantly larger portion of that young group will ALWAYS be in front of you until retirement. No need to spell out the obvious implications.
Nobody know how the arbitrators are going to weigh the elements of ALPA merger policy. What we do know is that relative seniority has been a factor in recent decisions. What needs to be evaluated is the plausibility of scenarios. Is this scenario out of the realm of plausibility? That is up to each of us to decide. I personally think it would be foolish to completely discount it.
I think what we can ALL agree on is that it is a wise strategy to minimize the risk going forward. We have increased the risk with the paybanding, why do we want to add even more? Minimizing risk is to have 1100 of the 1999-01 hires valued as close to the last active UAL pilot as possible. We just moved in the opposite direction.
The MOST important aspect is not that the furloughees necessarily receive their full longevity but that the playing field is level and their value is not diminished in the eyes of the arbitrator so that OUR ENTIRE group of brothers and sisters are not disadvantaged. This longevity carve out exclusively for the 99-01's is exactly what that does. Again, with this last minute carve out, EVERY SINGLE UAL Pilot is put at risk to be disadvantaged.
I'm sure the MEC has a plan to return longevity AFTER SLI, but that is TOO LATE to protect the ENTIRE pilot groups' career expectation. Seniority is forever and it truly is when the group your contending with is 10-20 years younger.
I'm not here to foment fear but only ask that we keep our eyes wide open, to understand the risk/reward with this AND all of the other issues in the TA, what it means for us the next 4-6 years as well as, and maybe most importantly, the profession we leave behind.
Thanks for reading.