Longevity
 

While I am well aware that there is absolutely NOTHING I can do to influence or control the outcome of the SLI; perhaps those of you here on this forum would care to discuss how you think an arbitrator would apply the longevity facet of the integration.

Is there some formula or ratio that is used? Is the list merged based on ratio and then a longevity formula applied? While it could be anyones guess... Let's here some of them.

Well..first off everything is negotiated with or without arbitration.

I have no idea how this is going to pan out, but longevity is certainly a valid argument. Is that going to be offset by career expectations? IE 4 years longevity but furloughed with no chance of recall in sight or 2 years longevity currently employed with attrition and growth within the airline.

Who freaking knows. I am not going to lose sleep over it. In one way or another, it will be relative seniority with some battle for the furloughs. (guess of course)

Longevity(10 years) * Status(furlough)=SLI position

10*0=0

That's my vote.

Unfortunately for actively employed CAL pilots, we won't be voting.

I just hope ALPA has as little to do with it as possible. Let the lawyers work it out, and pray this merger fails.

While I did not ask for this merger nor do I want it - doesn't change the fact that it is most likely not going away.

As for your vote - I don't believe that pilots on furlough will get any longevity protections. So your formula doesn't work with them.

Longevity will only be a player when two pilots are at the same relative seniority with one having 13 years uninterrupted service (no loa's or furlough) and the other has 3 years of service.

I am not advocating any one position. I am only asking for speculation on how the restriction for "longevity consideration" will play out in such a situation.

It is also entirely possible that a arbitraitor might just as easily "consider" the aspect of longevity and then decide not to use it at all.

"ANYTHING can happen in Arbitration"
Capt. Jim Brucia (May, 2010)

The quote says it all for me.....plain and simple. When in doubt, just refer to the first word in his quote.

Trying to guess on how an Arbitration Panel is going to rule on a future SLI is like being able to predict when "Green" will come up on the Roulette Table during your next Vegas overnight!! To get wrapped up/side tracked in speculation/hypothesizing only detracts from the task at hand that 'officially' started last week, the JCBA.

Respect to the "OP" (Skypest)....I realize that it's a very sensitive topic, and one that many of us have major concerns/worries about, far from discounting your discussion. One thing's for sure, we'll have PLENTY of time to layout thoughts/idea's on this topic after we secure the JCBA that we/& the industry deserves;)

Flew 3 legs yesterday, predominately through UAL 'country'. We had 4 UAL JSer's (FO/School House instructor, Senior WB CA, 2 Mid-Junior Bus FO's) who sat up throughout yesterdays pairing. Having had the chance to speak with them face-to-face regarding our common concerns/wants/needs during this JCBA negotiation was reassuring. One mantra that rang loud and clear across the board was to hold the line HARD on SCOPE....hands-down (Even the Senior WB CA who's less than 12 months from being 'out the door' voiced this need loud and clear). During the leg with the UAL Instructor, there was also an AA B777 CA who was in the other JS listening to the discussion. His words were pretty sobering when he pointed out that OUR opportunity is like the Perfect Storm that only comes about every 50 years, and this JCBA is just that, not only for the New UAL pilot group, but the entire industry landscape.

I'll be the first to admit when it comes to the SLI considerations, there will be 1000+ ideas on how 'it should' go down. My only hope is that there is ONE STRONG voice from both pilot groups when it comes to voting on this JCBA when (or if) it's handed down by our respective MEC's.

Apologies for the thread drift......continue with the topic at hand.

SoCal-

You and I are very much on the same page. I agree that a strong and industry leading JCBA is a must. And on the topic of scope - you are correct in your perceptions of the United pilots desires. Scope is the number one issues for the majority (right up there with a pay raise).

Best of luck to us all.:cool:

+1 to all the above!

Amazingly not all CAL Pilots will benefit from a relative seniority merger. If I were to receive DOH, (1987), I'd be in much better shape. Only question I'm asking is what would be the most fair in a one size fits all world.

Relative seniority, like it or not, puts you pretty much where you would be on your own list and isn't a wild gyration one way or the other.

Granted an arbitrator will probably hack up our list in pieces and do whatever it is he sees as fair but if he has to choose one method, it would probably be relative seniority.

I think you are correct. I was merely looking for a suggested formula on how longevity could be made to account.

If at all......

I hear a lot of talk about "relative seniority". Those words are not found in ALPA merger policy.

Longevity has been added since ALPA doesn't want to lose another major airline.

Here's the problem with a strict "relative seniority" SLI.

Let's say you're a 13 year UAL guy. You are a junior 767 F/O but, when the retirements start, you will move rapidly up the list and have a very nice seat for your last 10 years with the company (eventually retiring at #160). If 1,500+ CAL pilots get put in front of you (that are your age or younger) you will retire at #1,660. That's the difference from being a VERY senior 747 Capt to a junior 777 Capt on reserve.

Can you say CAREER EXPECTATIONS??

Career expectations, longevity, and "no major windfalls" will all be balance out for the SLI process.

(I hope) :)