If the arbitrator ruled in favor of the company, then how did you come about the $40 million for the grievance settlement?

Again, not an ALPA insider, and I have not checked these "facts", but my understanding is that the 2011 UniCal pilot profit sharing distribution was challenged on 2 fronts:

1) The methodology used to determine distribution to UAL pilots was not in keeping with their CBA because it included the CAL pilots in the total pilot count. (This is the one that has supposedly been ruled in favor of UAL-ALPA.)

and

2) The CAL-MEC Chairman and the company violated the TPA by negotiating a non-contractual payment independent of the tri-party negotiations. (This was awaiting the decision above even though it was filed first under the expedited process of Grievance hearing, and no award has yet been negotiated).


It is also my understanding that the disputes were complicated by issues surrounding national ALPA as Lee Moak "flip-flopped" on key evidence, but again I am NOT an insider and have no way to verify these "facts" so consider this a rumor that you should independently verify with your local LEC reps.


A humorous aside, when the decision was handed down against CAL-ALPA and the company on the first part, supposedly Jay Pierce was in the room and stood up to offer his services in negotiating a settlement with the company, and he was then "thrown out" of the proceedings by the arbitrator at the request of UAL-ALPA. Again only rumor


Funny stuff actually, and I'm sure just the beginning of a never ending circle of internal battles. If UAL-ALPA does win both, how much you wanna bet we, the line pilots, never hear about it and the award gets negotiated for something like a 1000 year fence for Jay Heppner and his 747-400 driving buddies while the rest of us are left to squabble over 737 captain seats and pull each others eyes out in the process.

2 different Grievances were filed. One for the block hour ratio violation (above), and the other was for the selling of 2 767-200's. The latter was the one involved in the disputed settlement.

The parking of the 67's resulted in a block hour ratio violation but was ruled in favor for the company due to force majeure. Now the planes, already parked as a result of force majeure, are sold. That however, was a violation and resulted in a $40 million dollar settlement outside of arbitration. So instead of selling, the company could have retained the planes, park them in the desert, and forgone the $40 million dollar settlement? Either way, the planes were never to operate in service again?

Does that pretty much sum it up?

Pretty much. I think the slippery part to the selling of the 762's was that they were shopped prior to the MAD thus making it an uncertain win in a grievance. The block hour ratio one was supposed to be a slam dunk as it was a clear cut violation.

All true, Hoss. The thing is, back in 2000, what was your expectation of how the UAL USAirways SLI should have looked? You also neglect to mention the crap shoot nature of airline hiring. Who an airline hires is somewhat arbitrary, the long term success of the airline we go to work for is somewhat arbitrary, I guess in a sick sort of way it's fitting the way we decide the SLI is an "arbitration" board.

XHooker wrote..
Airhoss wrote...
The plain English translation of what I said was airline hiring and career expectations are a total crap shoot, luck of the draw ETC ETC... Some of the Jr. guys who have had nothing but career progression and good luck just don't understand that...Yet.

Cheers,

We are on the same page but apparently my "poetic prose" wasn't understood in the way I was trying to put it forth.

In regards to the Usair merger attempt and before that the the AWA merger attempt. Back in those days things were rolling right along. I was a line holding 777F/O back then with three or four years seniority just waiting for my captains bid to activate. Nothing but blue sky and sunshine ahead, what could possibly go wrong!?! To tell you the truth I don't recall the subject of a negative outcome for me even being a remote possibility at the time. I guess I didn't truly understand the ramifications back then and it never even got close to becoming a reality from an operational standpoint.

That was the truth of the matter for me anyway.

The fact that there are unfilled slots in IAH goes to show how popular that swap is. The biggest differentiation is that there are hundreds of LUAL folks who can't get to there original bases while LCAL folks are taking the opportunity to move to new cities and/or work where they live. Just as fleets are not to be crossed until SLI, neither should have the bases. Let the final seniority, however that is decided, dictate who goes where and on what.

Wouldn't a "FLUSH BID" solve all these problems after SLI. At least it would put people in domiciles, airplanes and seats their senority will hold.
Fairness is what you are looking for right?

No bump no flush as per the TPA