I hear your point, but come on. There are 153 70 seaters flying the UAL code.

 

That's 153 too many.

 

Not too many, just the wrong people flying them.

 

just curious, if there are around 546 Captains at UAL on the 747/777 and about 154 or so at CAL on the 777, what is the best way to ratio in the top 700 pilots in your opinion?

 

Offer them an early out.

 

According to December staffing, there are 190 captains on the B777 at CAL. The last system bid had 182 positions on the B777 and a further 41 captains have been awarded the B787 in anticipation of the first deliveries.

I don't know whether the UAL figures you quote are remotely accurate.

And remember, the B767 pays the same as the B777 at CAL and there are a couple hundred of them.

Also staffing at CAL is very lean when compared to UAL and if we were staffed according to the same formula as them, we probably would have 10 - 15 % more pilots in every category. Conversely, if UAL were staffed like CAL, they'd probably have 15 - 20% less pilots in each category!

Throw in career expectations, longevity, and the kitchen sink, and you have an interesting mix.

So, the short answer to your question is - I have no clue! Which is why - hopefully - a wise, just AND impartial panel, will have to figure it all out!

 

And remember at CAL our primary goal is to make UAL's wide bodies look like a



and their narrow bodies look like a




We need to get a JCBA outside of SLI concerns, and let the arbitration panel sort through the rest.

 

This is what arbitrators in the past have said

1) airline A you have X number of planes with 2 aisles (widebodies) and you have Y number of planes with 1 aisle (narrowbodies)

2) airline B you have X number of planes with 2 aisles (widebodies) and you have Y number of planes with 1 aisle (narrowbodies)

This establishes a ratio for the planes ,then they move on to next step the ratio of pilot positions involving career expectations, thats where it gets messy.

An airlines orders have largely been ignored other than aircraft coming in the next few months, I will be surprised if the 787 orders from either airline will be recognized in the ruling with all the Boeing issues.

 

30west,

I had a voluntary furlough asking about his status. I'm assuming this is where longevity would factored into the equation. There are pilots who took leaves of absence as well. Has ALPA defined longevity for the purpose of seniority integration or is it open to broad interpretation?

 

I'm not 30West, but lemme take a stab at it and see what ya think

1) ALPA merger policy does not deal with voluntary furloughs specifically nor define longevity in any precise sense with regards to the SLI process.
2) Recent descisions (read Nicolau and DAL/NW) have built their SLI without regard to voluntary furloughs, but have reinserted them into the new list one number ahead of the next pilot below them on the old seniority list after the new SL was finalized.
3) Everything is negotiable so nothing is written in stone.




P.S. I love the visuals in your post above!!