Originally Posted by
Really
gettingbumped, I know the term "Relative" is getting overused and everyone on here has there definition of what it means. But, from most of the CAL guys I talk to, if you look al the CAL list on 5/10/10 and see what % you are that is where most people want to be when the list is published(+ or - 3%) UAL can do same with their list! Where the issue arises is the furloughed guys. If included, CAL guys move down about 7-10% on "Relative" list and thats the hang-up. We can debate here all day long why or why not they should be included with little success since we are on different sides of the fence for the next 2 more months!! I've tried to answer your ? as straight forward as I can since I've enjoyed the tone of your posts!! I agree with what you told the FO you flew with I just wish the system was set up better so we weren't fighting over the same ball at the playground!! I'm looking forward to all flying together someday!!(+ or- 3%)
Thanks Really,
I can certainly understand a relative seniority +/- position for the LCAL pilot group. In the LUAL proposed list, it's FAIRLY close to that (I think I'm +1.4) until you get down to the sticking point of where the furloughed pilots go.
The LCAL list didn't appear to be based on relative, as far as I can tell. It was a 1 for 1 slotting until there were no more LCAL pilots left, and then a straight staple for all LUAL pilots left.... which was after about 1997, whether they were ever furloughed or not, regardless of what they were flying, and no matter what number they could expect to retire at in a stand alone United. Thus, NONE of the ALPA merger policy tenets were followed.
For me personally, the frustration isn't that Katz went for a pie in the sky moonshot with the list. That's his strategy, and was at USAirways too. The frustration I has was after reading Ben's diatribe which focused on the unfairness of the LUAL list with regards to where our furloughed bubba and bubettes were placed. It just felt like he was using a slingshot in an extremely glass house to me. I assumed that when the LCAL methodology came out, it would be chalked up to strategy. Go as wide as you can and hope to end up in the middle. I didn't expect it to be supported as what ANY of us would actually like to see adopted. If the LCAL position becomes merger policy, we better hope and pray we never merge with anyone small, because you would have new hires becoming instant Widebody Captains.