Originally Posted by
Gupboy
So why were 05 Cal hires merged with Ual 98 hires on the UAL proposal?
You seriously think they will move down from the original UAL proposal? Which would mean the ARBS improved the UAL proposal for the UAL side, and completely ignored every facet of the CAL merger committee's presentations. I'll give you one thing...you are one seriously optimistic person. Good luck with that.
UAL hired 1,000 pilots in 1998. That's a large spread. Some of them will end up with 2005 hires, probably those hired later in the year. Some probably end up with 2001 hires.
The UAL proposal is a FRAMEWORK. The UAL list is based on 50/50 longevity vs. status and category. The CAL list is just "1 for 1", which is stupid.
Based on the 2010 CAL list and 2010 CAL staffing numbers, Narrowbody (ie 737) FO stovepipe is everyone hired 2005 and later. That means that means that those guys have less status and category than many 1998 hires, as well as less longevity than ALL 1998 - 2001 hires. So what would you expect the arbitrators to do? How can you bonus them more status and category and longevity?
So if the Arbs say, Lets give 60% longevity and 40% status and category, the list will shift. Better for the bottom of UAL, worse for top of UAL. Maybe they say 45% longevity 55% status and category. At least UAL gave them a tool to analyze the 2010 lists and see where it should go.
I promise you the DAL NWA list would have looked MUCH DIFFERENT if longevity was a factor of merger policy, which it wasn't. They just used status and category. This panel will likely use both of them. It was added so it will be used.
So they aren't going to "improve" the UAL list, just make changes to it.
The CAL proposal is a joke and I think we all know that.
Unless status is "airline" and category is "pilot" then yes, just 1 for 1. Even at the hearing on of the CAL witnesses said "Category and Status isn't defined in the policy"
So there you have it....