Originally Posted by
Airhoss
Well,
I get boned either way. I just get bone less on this version of the ISL. On the CAL proposal I wind up at 98.1% seniority retiring at about 50%. On this proposal I wind up within 2% or so of my current 70%. L-CAL guys have been screaming for retaliative seniority and here it is. Now they want relative seniority from 4 years after the snap shot? That was JP's plan with his delaying tactics and it's wrong on every level. I guess what was really wanted was super secret special retaliative seniority?
I was supposed to retire in the top 100 at UAL. That's out the window but at least on this proposal I am not getting gang raped for the rest of my career.
This list is no where close to relative seniority.
For one example, a furloughed pilot has no "relative seniority", thus if this were relative, then UAL would be proposing to staple their own furloughs.
Guess it depends on how you define terms here, which this whole exercise is about.
According to this list, furloughed pilots with no access to current jobs get placed ahead of a few thousand active pilots? If that's UALs definition of reasonable, then I hope we put 30 year fences on this and call it a day.
Who decides which definition is correct? The arbitrator of course.
This is an exercise in futility. This UAL list is a cruel joke...nothing more, nothing less.
I expected this, so I'm not upset.
What I find humorous is that the UAL guys think their list is "reasonable".