thor2j

As you said luck has alot to do with it. Unfortunetly you cant punish employees at a carrier that has had a lot of movement and has high career expectations vs a carrier in a bit of a tail spin(no pun intended). If you are 75% you remain 75%. They are two different companies in 2 different directions. This way nobody looses on the current status and career expectations (ala the ALPA merger policy).

The hope is that we can all get a joint contract that pays and treats us like it should. Hopefully with early outs and scope the furloughs on both sides will be back sooner then later.

Blockoutblockin

I understand the whole process must be frustrating for someone on the outside looking in but your argument that a non-employee should somehow gain over an employee is desperate at best.

MILUAL

Actually I am a very senior F/O.

Just trying to point out Luck does not equal fair or right IMHO. If you had no dog in the fight, I think you would see it different.

Zoomie

Funny you use the term "screwed" in your argument. The irony is quite thick if you read on. Let me start off by saying I hope that no one gets "screwed".

However, there are always at least two sides to every story.

You are arguing whether or not it is "fair" for someone hired at a DIFFERENT company to go ahead of someone hired at your company. If airlines hired a steady 150-200 pilots a year at each company, this would probably be a moot point. However the reality is that airlines typically hire in waves for a few years, then turn the faucet off for a few years. Your age and your hiring date is simply a snapshot in time regarding the company's strength. At the point you were hired, UA may have been King Kong. However, a merger is another snapshot in time. The snapshot in time at the point you were hired doesn't amount to anything except how you will be stacked against other pilots at your original company. The snapshot that matters is right now at the point of merger.

How about this argument. A guy furloughed at UA could have taken a gamble at getting hired at CAL while on furlough the first time, been hired at CAL and already been a Captain, while his brethren stayed on the UA furlough listed and waited. Actually, I'm pretty sure there are a few of those guys at CAL. Since the reductions, I don't think they have those CA positions anymore, but they have a descent relative seniority at CAL. Would it be fair for a guy that was hired at UA and moved to CAL to then have to pay the price of moving to CAL, then pay again when they are merged?

We can all get blue in the face about what is "fair". We are not going to agree and that's why this will go to arbitration like every other merger integration.

The CAL guys won't accept that anyone furloughed gets put in front of anyone actively flying. This is also in addition to 13 additional "growth" aircraft (11 737s, 2 777s that WILL be on property by the end of the year.) Rough math says that this growth will require an additional 150-200 pilots. Next year CAL has more aircraft growth coming on property as well.

It is indisputable that in the absence of the merger with United, CAL would have a very high probability of hiring off the street by the end of the year. (And I would guess we will see if I'm accurate before this SLI gets completed)

In the absence of a merger at United, one could predict a potential for 4-5 years before all the furloughs are recalled and hiring would be required.

Is it fair that a United guy who wouldn't have dreamed of going to CAL in the last decade now gains from the sacrifices CAL pilots made to turn around their airline.

In addition, some UA pilots not to long ago had buttons and stickers that stated "Screw CAL" and "One LESS airline can make a difference" in reference to CAL.

I think in terms of how it will be handled, both CAL and UA pilots can agree to disagree, but also agree that the binding arbitration that will happen will be just that, binding arbitration.

chuckyt1

When was this? I personally have never seen, nor even heard of, such behavior.

Blockoutblockin

Oh Yeah! That happened most definitely - very arrogant, no?

chuckyt1

Deplorable... Again it's something I have never seen here. Does anyone have a time line?

XHooker

So have you always been a supporter of a national seniority list? How would you have felt about a DOH integration with TWA in the late 90s? As has been said, fair is in the eye of the beholder. With "no dog in the fight", I think what happened at US/AWA (percentage based integration with some exceptions) was basically fair.

Exactly.

XHooker

I think it happened in the early 90s, before most of us were at either airline. I actually understand the UAL pilots point of view, that CAL was a dirtbag, non-union operation lowering the bar for everyone. However, overt demonstrations of that opinion showed a lack of class, especially considering many of their targets had struck against Lorenzo for two years. We all need to let it go.

oncea57cap

ZOOMIE,
What you are missing is that the reason United furloughed 1400 guys a second time was to "right-size" the airline for CAL. UAL and CAL could have just merged and then figured out who to furlough, which would then undeniably have been the CAL guys who would have got furloughed because they were less senior. The United furloughees have paid the price for this merger to happen and should get something back for it. This isn't the case of an airline going down the tubes being saved by another airline.