Originally Posted by
jsled
OK. That is not the way I read it or had it explained to me by my reps in Denver. But ok. $115/hr on 737-800/900 DOS and a minimum of full active longevity pay after SLI. That's the way Scenario 3 reads.
Scenario 3: Twice-furloughed pilot now working at CAL. Three years UAL, then another two years UAL, and 1.5 years at CAL.
At Date of Signing, the pilot will be adjusted to 4 years 7 months of longevity for pay purposes at CAL. This longevity will be improved after SLI by combining his UAL and CAL longevity. Additionally, for pay it may be improved by the SLI process as described in Scenario 2 above. This UAL furloughee working at CAL is considered a “CAL pilot” but is pay protected at his UAL pay rate. That pilot will see a potential increase in pay longevity to 5th year TA rates if the new rate is higher than the previous protected rate. After the completion of the ISL a second adjustment of his pay longevity will be computed to account for his time on furlough. This added pay longevity will be capped so as to not exceed the longevity of the CAL pilot just senior to him on the ISL. This pilot will NOT lose any longevity and can only improve upon his 6.5 years of longevity for pay. After ISL this pilot’s full earned longevity (CAL plus UAL) will apply.
You are not getting it. First things first. Anyone with over 4.8 years of longevity will only get 4.8 years of longevity at DOS. We lose something right then and there for double furloughees. (oh yeah, don't remind me, but sure we go from our previous pay at UAL and move up in pay to 4.8 year pay at CAL) That's great and all but a 1 year guy from UAL gets a true benefit. The key words are"
for pay it may be improved by the SLI process. THat's the kicker. Your pay longevity cannot be any higher than the next senior guy at CAL. If we get stapled, then we are stuck at 4.8 years of PAY. Watch MECs wording here. You will not lose longevity does not apply to PAY, which everyone is missing. Haven't had a MEC guy counter that yet. Jay H, is playing a word game here or doesn't understand the ramification of his lie. In fact, no one can positively say that our longevity for non-pay purposes is maintained after SLI (for vacation, etc..). IT's hard to believe we would be able to keep that. The whole intent of LOA 25 to position us for a staple. Get that straight and open your eyes and ears. How can you possibly think, we are going to get full PAY longevity if we are stapled at 4.8 years of regular longevity. Some guys need to take off the blinders and see what's going on. Right now The UAL MEC in private is conceding we got screwed and will have to fight this on a later date. Not fair nor right. So when you go to a roadshow, ask them point blank, if we get stapled, are we guaranteed to get paid higher than the next senior CAL guy, which would be at 4.8 years. Watch what their answer is going to be. It has to be NO. And then you can ask, hopefully Jay H., why he wrote everyone would not lose any longevity for pay when in fact, in this scenario every double furloughee will. When this example gets laid out to a MEC member, they stumble. Hmmmm. Believe what you want, but when your paycheck shows otherwise, what are you going to do then?!! Too late pal. It's easy to form answers that you want to hear or see.