Originally Posted by
LCAL dude
Your argument assumes a date of recall based on eveything being frozen, and is like a Detriot auto worker saying "I would have retired from my job making $XXX,000/year if they hadn't outsourced it to Mexico." Even without the UniCal merger the recall date for furloughees was TBD, therefore their career earnings could NOT be calculated. Many variables come into play such as parking of the Busses or DinoSevenFours/Fives, continued economic slowdown, USAir merger, etc.
For all we know, a furloughee might never have returned to UAL.
If you believe that is plausible, you would have to deny the historical fact the every CAL/UAL pilot ever furloughed was eventually offered recall and a right to finished their career, but who knows, the Mayans may be right.
Originally Posted by
Mitch Rapp05
A furloughed pilot has no job at United, just a promise that IF and WHEN United begins to hire again they will get first choice to return (in seniority order). Potential or hypothetical makes not a recall. For example, just because United has "x" amount of pilots slated for retirement doesn't automatically mean that the furloughed pilot will eventually be needed to replace him (see Age 65 or mgt. could simply not replace the retired pilot and shrink the airline <-- a very real possibility).
"Absent" a merger, a return to the UAL list is NO given. Many ASSUMPTIONS must have occurred before ONE l-UAL pilot would have been recalled to a "non-merged" UAL. To now assume that said ASSUMPTIONS would have become "definite" sufficient enough to place a currently unemployed pilot in front of an employed pilot is unreasonable.
Well, you may want to review the Pan AM / National arbitrator's decision. This was a major merger with a furlough issue not unlike UAL / CAL. There have been other cases, Canadian / Air Canada, where Canadian pilots had no expectation, they were within a few days of BK and all their pilots faced unemployment through dissolution, but the Arb found fairness in a full ratio-ed seniority list. So Arbs do look at everything, including the future synergies.
Originally Posted by
13n144e
The arbitrators can pretty much do whatever the hell they want. They have extensive latitude and are not limited or confined to the items specified in the merger policy. Kinda like the Pirate's Code - "it's more just a general guideline."
These individuals are all professional arbitrators. They're not going to blow their professional cache by going completely off the ranch and bucking all past precedent. Disabuse yourself of that notion as soon as possible.
Pay close attention to this quote, what he is saying is that once the issue is turned over to a national arbitration board arbitrator, they are only governed by one principle: "It has to be fair." They are not constrained by any policy of ALPA's unless they somehow feel morally obligated.
He is also saying that these Arbs want to continue to work in their trade, so, a really bad decision would probably mean they would never be invited to do another. A career ending scenario. This is why arbitrated decisions generally try to split the baby. Although old Arbs can be dangerous.
Baron50