Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums - Find your next job as a Pilot > >
Mergers and Acquisitions Facts, rumors, and conjecture
 

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-04-2010, 05:27 PM   #61  
Gets Weekends Off
 
NuGuy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,713
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LifeNtheFstLne View Post
The snapshot WAS NOT taken yet, fyi.
Not really true. In most mergers, including the NW/DL merger, the date the merger was announced was considered "constructive notification", and the SLI was based around that.

For you guys, that was Monday.

Nu
NuGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2010, 05:33 PM   #62  
Banned
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeFXDWG View Post
I have no doubt CAL ALPA is saying that. Now, go read the the active merger policy available on the ALPA website. Then, approach the process from a neutral standpoint. Better yet, read the USAIR Nicolau ruling and read CALs own pilot member and his issues with the determination for failing to take longevity into account. Believe his name is Bruschia.

Then come back and try again. You guys set the stage for the new policy. BTW, I believe he is on your merger commitee as well.

Lee
Your turn to read again. Furloughs have no active status and therefore will go to the BOTTOM. Sorry, but proven over and over. Career expectations as well as longevity(NOT DOH) have weight. CAL has 10x more career expectations. I am trying to be neutral by saying the only fair way is relative seniority. I would personally like the career expectations heavily weighted, but figure the only way we will ever come to an agreement is straight relative seniority. Don't forget most 2005 CAL hires have more longevity (aka active time) then most UAL furloughs.
thor2j is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2010, 06:03 PM   #63  
Need More Callouts
 
757Driver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Unbridled Enthusiasm
Posts: 2,073
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NuGuy View Post
Not really true. In most mergers, including the NW/DL merger, the date the merger was announced was considered "constructive notification", and the SLI was based around that.

For you guys, that was Monday.

Nu
Agree and completely true.
757Driver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2010, 06:16 PM   #64  
Line Holder
 
cactusdog16's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: 737 Capt
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thor2j View Post
Career expectations as well as longevity(NOT DOH) have weight. CAL has 10x more career expectations.
Thor:

With all due respect, you need to understand what UAL is bringing to the table (again, twice as many WBs as CAL and a huge international presence) and admit to yourself that the UAL pilots do have significant career expectations. Just because CAL's current upgrade time is shorter than UAL's does not mean that the career expectation of a UAL pilot is "nada," or even that "CAL's is 10x UAL's." That is simply ridiculous.

Aren't you salivating just a little at the prospect of your airline's widebody fleet tripling in size?? C'mon, you can admit it! Better pay! More days off! Who wouldn't like that? And now you want to jump ahead of all those United pilots who have been waiting in line for the higher paying, better quality-of-life equipment?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thor2j View Post
I am trying to be neutral by saying the only fair way is relative seniority. I would personally like the career expectations heavily weighted, but figure the only way we will ever come to an agreement is straight relative seniority.
Straight relative seniority would place you closer to the higher-paying, better QOL equipment than you have ever been. It would place me further away than I have ever been since being a new-hire well over a decade ago. How would that be fair? If the fleet types of our two companies were more closely aligned, I would say straight relative seniority would be a go. But they're not. And it's not.
cactusdog16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2010, 06:22 PM   #65  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thor2j View Post
Can't say for the volunteered furlough, but as most people will tell you furloughees will not go ahead of ANY active pilots. It just doesn't happen. CAL ALPA is saying they will will not settle for anything less then relative seniority+career expectations. And I am sure UAL ALPA is saying the opposite. Relative seniority is the only fair integration for both sides, if you are 50% you stay 50%. How much fairer can you get.
Do you know why the top 517 slots went to US Airways in the America West merger? Because of the widebody disparities between the 2 airlines. You are right, relative seniority is fair....within aircraft types. 111 Widebodies vs 46 widebodies is going to be addressed with more UAL pilots than CAL pilots slotted in the top of the list-just like US AIR/ Am West. CAL, with more narrowbodies will see more favorable slotting in that part of the list. JMHO
jsled is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2010, 06:29 PM   #66  
Da Hudge
 
80ktsClamp's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 16,864
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsled View Post
Do you know why the top 517 slots went to US Airways in the America West merger? Because of the widebody disparities between the 2 airlines. You are right, relative seniority is fair....within aircraft types. 111 Widebodies vs 46 widebodies is going to be addressed with more UAL pilots than CAL pilots slotted in the top of the list-just like US AIR/ Am West. CAL, with more narrowbodies will see more favorable slotting in that part of the list. JMHO

These are very realistic expecations.

Furloughs will be placed on the bottom as they are not on property. Sucks, but that's the way it is.



As far as the snapshot, it was yesterday.
80ktsClamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2010, 06:44 PM   #67  
Gets Weekends Off
 
AAflyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 645
Default

How does it take into account pilots that have the seniority to hold wide-body positions, but fly narrow body for QOL?


Thanks

AA
AAflyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2010, 06:47 PM   #68  
Banned
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cactusdog16 View Post
Thor:

With all due respect, you need to understand what UAL is bringing to the table (again, twice as many WBs as CAL and a huge international presence) and admit to yourself that the UAL pilots do have significant career expectations. Just because CAL's current upgrade time is shorter than UAL's does not mean that the career expectation of a UAL pilot is "nada," or even that "CAL's is 10x UAL's." That is simply ridiculous.

Aren't you salivating just a little at the prospect of your airline's widebody fleet tripling in size?? C'mon, you can admit it! Better pay! More days off! Who wouldn't like that? And now you want to jump ahead of all those United pilots who have been waiting in line for the higher paying, better quality-of-life equipment?



Straight relative seniority would place you closer to the higher-paying, better QOL equipment than you have ever been. It would place me further away than I have ever been since being a new-hire well over a decade ago. How would that be fair? If the fleet types of our two companies were more closely aligned, I would say straight relative seniority would be a go. But they're not. And it's not.
With all do respect UAL brings pretty much nothing to the table. Crying, not salivating. Not one pilot at CAL wanted everything to do with this disaster (ok, maybe one). You may bring many more wide bodies, but you bring a huge anchor. Your upgrade times are more then double ours. That far outweighs your "heavy" flying. You must understand, a 2005 hire is 40% 75/76. We have different classifications then you. Our 738 and 739 pays the same as 75.

Why do you think it is fair that a CAL pilot a 50% on the F/O list holding holding 16-18 days off a month with 76 flying should now be behind your reserve guys?

I agree, relative seniority is not fair. We should, and hopefully get, career expectations plus relative seniority. I believe along with 4700 others that we have a very good case along with past precedents.

We shall see how it shall pan out. Nobody will be happy, but if you look at history relative seniority is everything, sorry. Currently 50%, stay 50%. Strange you can argue that.
thor2j is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2010, 06:48 PM   #69  
Banned
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp View Post
These are very realistic expecations.

Furloughs will be placed on the bottom as they are not on property. Sucks, but that's the way it is.



As far as the snapshot, it was yesterday.
Doesn't take career expectations into account.
thor2j is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2010, 06:55 PM   #70  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AAflyer View Post
How does it take into account pilots that have the seniority to hold wide-body positions, but fly narrow body for QOL?


Thanks

AA
It goes by bodies in seats. UAL has xx w/b positions, CAL has xx. After the integration, those ratios should be about the same and at the top of the list. It doesn't matter what the pilots within those numbers actually fly/bid. Does that make sense?
jsled is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Continental Seniority FloatGeek Major 33 01-14-2011 06:41 AM
Seniority question angelicm3 Regional 15 05-29-2006 04:44 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:43 PM.


vBulletin® v3.9.3.5, Copyright ©2000-2019, MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1