I just listened to days of bile hatred from a CAL Pilot.... I smiled and took his BS in the interest of safety. His anger was based on poor expectations, a incompetent CAL union, "Sugarland" Chairman and a scab/management friendly pilot culture.... with little understanding and no regard for UAL pilots...



CAL pilots... figure this out before you show up to fly. UAL pilots have done nothing to you. Your scab/management friendly union failed you. Even Sugarland told you.. "not one email or communication about the process." I didn't see one complaint from the CAL guys about the CAL proposed ISL. The arbs rejected the CAL proposal.. meaning your union failed you. The arbs accepted the UAL proposal as fair. Time to move on.

Figure this out before you fly.... don't want to hear it.

It should stop at the door.

You are certainly the minority of the CAL pilots, I've taked with since the award. As a matter of fact, I've not heard one pilot make your statement. When the board took away longevity credit for our 87/88 hires, it set in a motion a domino effect for the entire list...not just those in question. The first half of the list will also be UA dominated...look at the DOBs? I think most of us expected the back half of the UA active list to get a big bump because of there longevity advantage...and they did...but mixing 817 furloughed pilots ahead of activeCAL pilots, that were working and have been working before and since the Merger date is outrageous. Maybe you made out alright, but You have totally missed what happened to our pilot groupas a WHOLE if you really believe it was fair and equiteable.

I do not hold this decison against any UA pilot...they are good sh...t mostly, and look forward to putting this behind us. The UA MC and merger committee, made the best argument to the ALPA sanctioned arbitrators and they won....fair and done

......and you are awesome! Barney hugs all around.

Yeah, Sonny's kinda a big deal. People know him.

Come on Rico, don't blow my cover.

Yes and please remove the 1400 furloughs when calculating your %

Why? They count........ Suck it.

I think the point is that they really aren't included in the denominator used to determine comparative relative seniority. Using 12155 generally yields the 1 or 2 percent decrease you keep hearing about, which is unfortunately, inaccurate. We didn't have furloughees on our 2010 list so we can only count active pilots. That number seems to be about 11300 or 11400 which yields a much larger percentage drop - about 5 or 6 percent depending where you are on the list. Even this isn't accurate because now we're using 2013 numbers. Anyway the point is you have to compare apples to apples and you can't include numbers representing individuals who aren't on property, can't bid and have no bearing on your effective seniority.

Ahhh ok ....... Nevermind

The only one that matters is the new one you have now and your age. I made the mistake of looking at my rainbow chart (I kid you not - lol) of what my career progression till retirement and it ain't pretty for me either. No WB CPT for this jack hole with the new integrated list.