So, screw the bottom of the CAL list in the merger? Relative seniority sounds more fair than DOH with UAL.

 

Yes, more fair to you. Another B3 guy demanding that THEY get the best treatment.

You guys need to give it a rest. I won't stand idly by while somebody staples you to the bottom but you damn well better respect what the rest of us thinks fair or you'll see that support disappear.

 

You've got a point. Straight DOH or straight relative seniority both have their groups that would get the hose job. There's gotta be some sort of consideration given go both as well as fleet mix and firm aircraft orders although history has never included orders. One of the reasons to work something out amongst ourselves rather than let it go to some arbitrator try to figure it out who doesn't really get the whole picture.

 

quote=757Driver;374088]Yes, more fair to you. Another B3 guy demanding that THEY get the best treatment.

You guys need to give it a rest. I won't stand idly by while somebody staples you to the bottom but you damn well better respect what the rest of us thinks fair or you'll see that support disappear.[/quote]

Driver,

The B3rd guys see what your saying....it's a two way street without a doubt. I agree that there is no uniform way to attack this beast from top to bottom. There will probably be some crazy formula that the MIT grads layout that will encompass some theorem involving relative seniority and DOH for different ranges of the list.

From what I can surmise from your previous posts on this thread, you "support" the B3rd from getting tossed under the Goodyears?? From what I have read with a clear/open mind thus far, no one has walked away from the top 2/3rds in lending reciprocal support to "your" group.

The B3rd at CAL has every right to feel strong on this issue....and no, we won't "give it a rest". You and I both know that this pilot group has too many of sellouts (POS Contract '02), and Funny Number ('83&'84 Cats) that would have NO problem selling the B3rd down the river when the rudder meets the road. All we know for sure up to this point is the history of this pilot group and it's make up. What has happened in the past speaks enough volume for those of us on the B3rd to rightfully cautious during this time. When inferring that we are being selfish, I point out again that we are being extremely cautious knowing what the CAL pilot group has done in the past.

As I said earlier.....support and respect of the B3rd's fight at the table is a two way street. We will whole heartedly back the entire list to the end, as long as we are equally represented as the "others" when consideration for integration comes to the forefront.

Again, not stepping on toes.....respect right back to you. I'm sure that we can both agree that worse thing we can do is draw a division between our own group prior to any talks at the table. I see it better to approach it as a whole, not in thirds.

Look forward to trading more thoughts on the midnight haul over the tracks

 

No fences.

 

True. I would expect relative seniority with tweaks. What those tweaks are, well Cat IIIc hit on most of what I was thinking. I'm sure that there are a lot different tweaks that haven't been brought up yet. I'm not a fan of any fences, but there will likely be some.
757Driver, I'm sure that issues for your section of the seniority list will be addressed.

Now, as we all know, the devil's in the details. We all have certain expectations of where we'll end up on a combined seniority list. No matter which airline we're on, the odds are that almost everyone will end up being below where we'd expect to be.

For seniority integration, I'm personally in favor of having each MEC come up with a solution, have a brief discussion on it with the other MEC, and then go VFR direct to binding arbitration. The bad blood between groups on seniority list integration happens somewhere between the merger being announced and going to binding arbitration. I don't know if accelerating binding arbitration will do any better, but it's likely to not do much worse.

 

Ohhh, nooooo. Let the mediation thing run its course. It's better if there is a consensus among peers than a decision rammed down our collective throats.

 

When was the last time that there was a consensus among peers?

Also, it'd be a lot better work environment if we could all just blame a third party rather than the guy we'll be working with.

 

SoCal

Your take on this is the kind I respect. To get on here like Otto does and insist that RS is the only way to go insults the rest of us , (see upper 2/3's), but makes him look foolish as well. I've never once said I would ever throw ANYONE under any bus.

The B3's absolutely have the right to complain and it does have results. There's no way Neil would have made an appearance on the MC without your complaints and I'd say job well done in that department.

But for us guys who've been around the block to get on here and read day after day how tough you've had it with Contract '02, gosh its tough being on the bottom, ect, ect ect....seems ridiculous.

I could get on here and recount all the miseries I put up with in my early years and how many times I got screwed by the upper guys but you won't see that. We're all in this together and Otto's myopic view of how he thinks the SLI should go, (because he's suffered far more than I ever did supposedly), ****es me off.

Obviously his sentiments and yours seem differ greatly and your post was well thought out. IF this merger happens, we will have to stick together collectively and sort out a fair and equitable way to integrate the lists.

 

I agree Andy.