The pilots "holding captain" are the same ones that were captains back in 2007/8 when the retirement age changed to 65. Now they are going back to the left seat. It has nothing to do with any merger.

It was the opposite. We voted it in to move forward. CAL pilots voted against it to continue to grab upgrades and growth because their cost structure was less overall and it made more sense for management to hire to that side instead of the UAL side.

Most of these "junior Captain" arguments we keep hearing in the CAL talking points happened after the merger. Those should have gone to both pilot groups.

If I were management, I'd have tried to grow the CAL side as well. It just made financial sense.

Now with one contract, there isn't an incentive to do that.

We are all smart enough to see what was going on. The arguments of "The contract wasn't good enough" was lame, especially considering the same group previously voted in the terrible contract they were working under.

It is what it is. SLI and time will put everything in place. The guys who grabbed those seats, congrats to them. They will be junior for a long time.

I hate when you use we, as many of us are far from how you think and don't get scared into voting for contracts. By the way you keep talking about moving forward but you are on here everyday arguing about the next step.

There were many good reasons to either vote for or against the contract. "In order to move things forward" is not one of them. This might be the weakest statement I have ever heard a pilot utter.

I'm not sure why, but it appears that many CAL pilots on this forum feel an intense need to self validate by putting others down. "Moving forward" is so positive and generic, I don't see the need to be negative. It really is funny how in America two folks can look at the same exact issue and be so completely opposed to each other, but I think it's even more amazing when we disagree on whether or not higher pay and better work rules were an improvement.

The tint on someone's glasses is skewed, and we'll find out whose glasses are tinted hopefully in late summer early fall. 'Til then it's pretty obvious we won't agree on much

... "better" work rules?!!!!!
I can still have my days "off" rolled!
Keep the "add" pay, let me have my "off" days OFF!!!

1) Duty Rigs
2) Augmented Crews
3) pay for over on reserve
4) deadhead pay and rights

etc. etc.

Really?

You fought to get water?

You can't just say . . . "yeah overall the new contract is better. I don't like everything, but it's definitely an improvement."

Nope, I know you can't say that. . .

. . . . because this merger just ruined your life, and it was gonna be all peaches and cream.

"If only we had stayed just CAL and not joined up with these lily livered sissies that were going out of business anyways. For the life of me I can't imagine why our management agreed to a merger anyways."

You need to do more research on me. I am "furloughed" UAL at CAL.
My pay increased 4x! But I still voted NO, because PAY isn't everything...
LOA 26 was one reason. ADD pay to appease the crappy work rules, 76 seat... etc, etc, etc...

Sounds great, but you're not offering any specifics of how this contract hurt you. LOA 26 will not be "done" until SLI is done and even then there will be lawsuits galore on this issue so other than LOA 26 what are the "crappy work rules" that were better at CAL? And please let's not EVEN start on the RJ issue 'cuz ain't no one gonna know the answer for 10 years from now.

so is this what happens when a legacy announces hiring ?

I would hate to see when SWA, UPS, FDX, AA, DAL are all hiring in decent numbers again.....