Originally Posted by
horrido27
Hay Sonny.. think I might have found one of them (from my notes on the SLI Transcripts.)
Pilot C#### C#####
Hired UAL = 25 Jun 00
Furloughed = 2 Mar 02
Hired CAL = 18 Oct 05
Left CAL = 16 Oct 06 (resigned!)
Recall UAL = 20 Oct 06
Oh...
Furloughed = 22 Apr 09
Hired CAL = 12 Feb 13 (TPA 7B)
Compared to -
J##### V######
Hired UAL = 3 Jan 00
Furloughed = 2 Mar 03
Hired CAL = 18 Oct 05
Still at CAL!
So, between these two pilots - who has/had a better "career expectation"?
And the last "kicker". A pure CAL Pilot-
B### B#####
Hired CAL = 2 Feb 01
Furloughed = end 01?
Recalled = sometime 03?
Currently holds Captain 737.
It's not about individual pilots. That's already been said at the hearings. But this example is something that the Arbitrators probably will have to look at when it comes to "career expectations".
You have to look at the groups~ The Group at LUAL hired at the beginning of your wave back in 96/97. Same With CAL. Those hired in 00-01 at both sides.. those hired in 05-07 at both sides
Does a guy at one airline have better career expectations than another, based on similar dates of hire?
Alot goes into it. Looking forward to Aug (21st ?!) to see where these three pilots end up in relation to each other. Just one of many weird tough things.
Motch
You know what it says about career expectations?
It says that guys felt that they would have better careers at UAL. Bigger airplanes, better work rules, better flying to REAL international destinations. You can talk W-2's all day long, but our guys did a pretty good job explaining how DAL, UAL, SWA and AMR are all paying about the same going forward. Arguing that CAL guys used to have a higher hourly rate (compared to our temporary BK wages) is a waste of time.
I've met dozens of pilots who left CAL in the last 25 years to come over to UAL. None of them wishes that they had stayed. These weren't furloughed guys, just regular CAL line pilots that couldn't put up with life at CAL any longer.
CAL's problem is Katz. He's arguing W-2's and looking at the most junior captains to make a list. NEITHER of these things is mentioned in the merger policy that guides this whole process. He's tried these tactics before with horrible results.
Another laughable argument is for the April 2013 date for the merged list. Once again, there is no historical basis for NOT using the merger date back in 2010.