Originally Posted by
LAX Pilot
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....
Where does Career expectations fit in to the above scenario? does it even cross your mind that the ARBS may use "to include, but not limited to" latitude given to them by the new policy? What status is furloughed?
You are making a broad assumption that longevity will be weighted that heavily. Do you at least agree that a pilot hired at CAL in 2005, even stove-piped was a senior narrow body FO in 2010, where a UAL pilot hired years before that CAL pilot was furloughed. Which means that CAL longevity while measured in time is less, but in value is greater...in fact much greater since that CAL pilot actually was/is working.
I've said all along that this will play out within 2% of active pilot relative seniority. Some will fare better than others.