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) :)

You're absolutely correct about RS not being mentioned but the 1000lb gorilla in the room would be the DAL/NWA precedent set with the merger of two supposed equals.

As I stated, DOH would be way better for me but I think the fairer relative seniority scenario will play a major part in our upcoming merger.

As stated above, I see a surgical scalpel dissecting our list with certain formulas applying to different areas of the list.

Not to microanalyze your reply but the exact same thing will occur over here as well. We've got a boatload of retirements coming up over the next few years. The bottom line is we ARE merging and career movement on the stand-alone lists are all but a look in the rear-view mirror.

DAL/NWA was done by a "Category and Status Ratio". Those are the exact words used by the arbitrator in the award. In other words, the combined group was broken into 4 categories...wb cap, wb f/o, nb cap, and nb f/o. The pilots were ratioed within those categories based on the number of pilots existing in each category/status before the merger. Quite different than just taking into account relative seniority within a straight seniority list. Interesting that the Alpa merger policy now has "category and status" as one of the criteria, as well as longevity. And both were added after UsAir and DAL.

catagory and status
 

The best input I have heard from this group regarding SLI is when someone states the actual scenario for a segment of the list; as 757AV8R and 757Driver have. This is a demonstration of how straight line realtive seniority won't work.

I don't expect to gain anything at a CAL pilot expense but I don't expect (hope) to lose anything either.

In the exapmple of a UAL 1997 hire RelSen fails on all 3 counts in the ALPA merger policy.

Longevity: 13 years continuously at UAL (with several as captain) vs. a 2006 hire at CAL

Career expectations: Retiring at top 200 vs. top 1700 plus all the years in between are a big difference. Plus, UAL is bringing more retirements in the same period of time, or as the DAL/NWA arbitrator put it, more guaranteed advancements.

Status and Catagory: As a previous poster said, DAL/NWA broke down the list by widebody vs narrowbody and then did ratios from there. The same has to apply to us. For example: In straight-line seniority, (top x number of jobs are wide body Capts.; next y number of jobs are narrowbody Capts. , then widebody F/O, then narrowbody FO.) a UAL pilot that was at, say, 75% on the widebody F/O list would end up lower down that list after a straight RelSen integration due to the difference in number of widebodies. Conversely a CAL pilot would wind up relatively higher for the same reason.

This argument might not work in other areas of the list, but I'd like to hear from others at different sections of their seniority lists.

You are assuming that the 1500 CAL guys want to fly a heavy. Heck I'll be happy to retire in the 737. That's my Career Expectation.

By default, DAL/NWA was done on relative seniority. The comparable WB/NB ratios might lead one to believe that Category/Status ratio is referenced in their SLI. The disparagy between CAL/UAL WB/NB fleet ratios, don't allow fair juxtaposition of status and relative Sr.

Consider 2 factors. 1, Not all pilots consider super-long haul on the 777 desirable. Personally, I've spent way too many days with 17 hours at FL430. I could fly the 75/76 until I retire. I never want to spend more than 7.5 hours above fl280 again if possible. 2, CAL NB's pay more than UAL WB's, in most cases, anyway. The whole equipment argument is based on the premise that larger a/c pay better rates; not the case in this merger. My family would prefer I fly a SWA guppy or Jetblue A-320 above 80hrs than a UAL whale.

Lastly, I went through the UAL/AAA merger in 2000. It failed against popular coronation. I hope this merger fails as well, because there is nothing in it for the majority of my pilot group. I think that UAL could be a great stand-alone company with the best pilot group. But your management has neither the ability or desire to be the great airline that UAL should be. Fckng Shame. Bless us all.

Per the ALPA merger policy, no pilot will be voting on the SLI, not even the MEC's.

Don't worry, you can always sue and decertify ALPA if you are not happy.

I don't even get involved in Seniority integration talks with any pilot for the simple fact that:

1. I have no say at the table

2. I have no VOTE on the outcome

3. An arbitrator will be making the final decision.

I'm serious when I say I do not spend time thinking about the SLI process and where I will fall on the list. There is not one thing I can do about it, and an arbitrator can decided to do whatever he/she wants. So, to me, even discussions about this topic are a waste of time as no two people will ever agree on how it should be and what should be taken into account.

Personally, I would love to see seniority go by tall guys, born in NY on a Thursday afternoon, right around happy hour, who like pizza after a round on the course trying to maintain their 15 handicap....but that is just me. :D

1) I am not led to believe anything. I just read it verbatim from the DAL/NWA SLI award.....page 28..

"Summarizing, based on the record in its entirety, we conclude a four-category list, constructed on a Status and Category/Ratio basis, will properly respond to the demands of fairness and equity in the context of these particular facts."



2) If you think "Not all pilots consider super-long haul on the 777 desirable" will affect the sli, you are mistaken. That is comical.



3) <<CAL NB's pay more than UAL WB's, in most cases, anyway. The whole equipment argument is based on the premise that larger a/c pay better rates; not the case in this merger.>>

Where do you come up with this stuff? the Facts are: UAL's w/b rates are $190/132 per hr. That is $-3/-2 or a whopping 1.5% less than CALs w/b rates. The difference is UAL has WAAAY more w/b's than CAL, thus more guys earning those rates. CAL's n/b rates are nowhere near $190/132.

U guys should fence your wide-bodies, and 70 seaters. If your wide-bodies count, so should your 70 seat rj's.

ok fine
 

Fine if you don't want to negotiate in public; but can we get some input from some one not p1ssed-off from birth?!?

United has no 70 seaters. Is that all you got?

You are correct, UAL "HAS" no 70 seater's.....but there's A LOT of 70 seater's that have UAL painted on the side which is a direct result putting 1400+ UAL guys/gals on the street.....True statement.

Said it in the first page of this thread.....to attempt to 'discuss' (or as it's become, 'banter') this topic is pointless. Up to this point, there has been a few 'good' points by some, but this thread is surely (yes, Shirley) on it's way to being the 'slow train to no where' in the productivity department.

Did I mention 'pointless':rolleyes:

This post here is 100% spot on. None of us will determine anything regarding this issue. Our opinions mean nothing and our actions will cause nothing.

Shannon

Fine!
 

Fine, wimps! :D

Just trying to spread some understanding of where each pilot group was coming from. I guess we'll wait until after to start complaining to each other. And we'll all be ignorant as to what the rationale was...

"Monkeyfly squawk 2000"

Not at all. UAL does fly lots of 777's and lot's of 70 seat rj's. Problem is, you want CAL pilots to subsidize your rj problem with our seniority. BTW, you've got over 1,440 furloughees. Since this is the case, Now we have to counter your exotic new form of SLI. Anyone who is not getting a paycheck is negotiating "Seniority Derivatives". The "Speculation" of what a furloughees seniority is worth vice a man with a paycheck in his hand is ludicrous.

Ludicrous to a scumbag behind a keyboard. To a furloughed guy with 11 years and 6 active, ready to fight.

If I'm doing the math right, I'd think 5 years on furlough would take the fight out of most people. Geeze...it ain't that good of a job.

No dog in this fight, but just a point of fact, according to APC:


UAL has 78 aircraft paying max rate of 190/130,
CAL has 48 aircraft paying max rate of 193/132.

UAL has 132 aircraft paying max rate of 159/109
CAL has 221 aircraft paying max rate of 169/116

UAL has 152 aircraft paying max rate of 137/94
CAL has 76 aircraft paying max rate of 150/102

(CAL 737 Fleet average (2/3 LN, 1/3SN) 162/111)

of those
UAL has 35 767s in the middle pay band
CAL has 26 767s paying the top rate,

Short call reserve at CAL puts their 737-500 drivers ahead of UAL's 767 drivers in terms of guarantee.

UAL has 40% more aircraft @ the WB rate,
and 100% more aircraft at the SN rate.
Whereas CAL has 60% more 'middle class' aircraft.

UAL has a larger 'upper class', and a much larger 'lower class'.
But CAL's 'lower class' make almost the same as UAL's middle class.
(only about $3-400/month less on guarantee)

Given that CAL's pilots are cross utilized on small and large 737s, it certainly appears that almost all CAL drivers make as much as or more than UALs 767 drivers.
Or in other words, all CAL pilots have a better pay rate than 79% of UAL pilots.

You must have me in mind. We here at UAL, at least the ones I've spoke with, feel that since we MUST merge with a carrier, CAL is hands down, the best dance partner. We are being assessed now for the merger to protect our interest (I think CAL is doing the same). Our interest (UAL) is to dump Tilton and his team of overcompensated managers and to a lesser extent, protect our career expectations. Career expectations mean different things to different people. My sense is that no matter how much Merger legal talent we hire to protect our (UAL and CAL) respective interest, it will land in arbitration where a neutral party, with no axe to grind, will decide how it will be done. In other words, we are all going to have to take a bite of a s#!t sandwich

Well that explains the willingness of senior dirtbags to sacrifice our careers in exchange for a few bucks...don't you just love these kind of people?

It "ain't that good of a job" because *%$@%$!* like you keep selling the JR guys down the river to protect your "good jobs".

I read and understand the argument about the 13 year UAL pilot who had the opportunity to spend a year or two in the left seat and has had 13 years of longevity upset about being put in relative seniority against someone hired at CAL in 2005(me). I understand the argument about the career progression at the end if the UAL 1997 career and the widebody captain spots. If I was that person I'd mention the same things in an argument. My counter would be that us 2005 hires at CAL were holding 737 captain and in my case it would be about 30 years in the left seat vs whatever will play out with this merger. That is a big career earnings difference. While we lack in the widebody count currently, we have new widebody aircraft on order with delivery slots. That is growth and growth in the widebody fleet. You will benefit from all the 787's that will be arriving(at least 50 and probably closer to 100 over the next decade) even if they end up replacing some of the 767-300 like most think will happen down the road.
If we both stood alone, I can honestly say that my career progression would be a lot greater at CAL than it will be with the merger. I do feel as if the combined carrier will be more solid financially going forward than either would be alone. I'm willing to give up a little seniority to work for a true powerhouse on a worldwide scale with more job security(even if that job is in the right seat a decade longer than "expected"). I hope in the end we all accept the outcome of the SLI and move forward rather than do what US Airways has done. Hopefully the new contract will overcome what some may deem as a loss in the SLI.

That's what I said!

No ill will towards anyone personally, but my @ss still aches from the Nicolau Award. And I trust lawyers only a little more than I trust the Sr @ CAL. God help us all.

I'll be the first to admit I am a *%$@%$!*, especially when it comes to #$^&*. Not entirely sure how I've personally "sold any RJ guys down the river". As a life time MIGS, I've never voted for any scope waive, my line has the best that is still enforceable in the industry and I've only voted to ratify one contract in my life time and that was a long time before the first RJ rolled out of the jungle. That one was via an in house union, when you were more than likely not yet learning how to fly. I am always amused at the perception that somehow the realities of the business cycle (and the fact that the airlines just don't need as many pilots and certainly fewer with attitudes) is the fault of the pilots who have jobs in the eyes of those who don't.

Just saying, if it weren't for timing, I'd have done something else. With an attitude like your's, my advice is you should too. You might not be so paranoid if it weren't for the fact that everyone's out to get you.

Sorry, the highlighted is meant to imply that the decision to merge was made by our CEO NOT the employee's. My brain did not send the correct message to my hands that were typing.

Just sayin, I wouldn't be so paranoid if fellow UAL pilots hadn't sold us furloughed guys down the river. See, I've never flown an RJ. And yes, the jobs not that great....hell, you saw to that.

Hmm, I was just wondering...


It has always seemed unfair that a Brand-X pilot, with ten years longevity at his carrier is stapled below a pilot at Brand-Y, simply because Brand-X's management has furloughed the first guy.

It has also seemed unfair that a Brand-Y guy who has a job, could lose it, due to the ebb and flow of recalls and furloughs after a merger.


What if there were two lists? One for bid seniority - essentially ordered by longevity - and another list to be used in case of recall or furlough - ordered by relative position, with furloughees stapled? The competing interests of each pilot are protected - when Pilot X is recalled he enjoys seniority over Pilot Y, but should furloughs return, Pilot Ys job is protected.

Thoughts?

So... rather than an illustration of how I personally have sold RJ guys down the river, you'll just continue to insist that your poor work ethic, your attitude, your inability to see that you choose an over sold career, your lot in life, is STILL somehow my fault.

I'd say if we ever get the chance to fly together, you'll really dislike the job, especially in the weeks and months that follow as you are trying to defend my well documented accusations of your perpetual safety compromising insubordinations.

As of right now, no, CAL pilots aren't being assessed for this merger. This is due to the fact that we had a merger fund of a set amount when all this began. It was mentioned on the latest Town Hall Conference Call that the CAL MEC is discussing putting an assessment vote out to the pilots for sometime this fall in the event that the balance of the fund goes below a certain amount.

Not sure what this fund would be used for at this time and why the balance would be going down since UniCal management has agreed to pay all merger related expenses to UniCal ALPA for the time being.