LeeFXDWG

Coto,

You are correct if the assumption is the provisions of the Furlough Mitigation LOA remain intact and are included in the JCBA.

I'm not saying it will not be, but that LOA is only in effect as long as the current CBA is active. Go read the fine print.

Those provision can be wiped away in a signing of a new JCBA that fails to include it. Granted, I doubt the UAL MEC will give that away.

I'm just pointing out that it is not an automatic carryover to the JCBA.

Frats,
Lee

Coto Pilot

Lee, name one ALPA merger where a pilot seniority list was shuffled, meaning a junior pilot advanced over a more senior pilot on the same pre merger list. I don't believe it has ever happened aside from a few corrections for previous mistakes, it isn't going to happen here either.

LeeFXDWG

Coto,

You missed the point. The letter of agreement and all provisions can be included in the JCBA or otherwise modified as a part of the negotiated contract. Whether any change will be made is yet to be seen; however, items such as 10 year recall rights from date of furlough, for instance, could be changed. Just like any other thing could. The agreement terminates at the inception of a new contract unless included in the final language.

That was my point.

Frats,
Lee

Sunvox

Yes I agree, and in general I find your posts to be informative and helpful, but I believe in this particular instance the jist of your last several posts has been to imply that UAL furloughees might end up ahead of CAL line pilots after the "dust settles" and in that regard I will bet you a "round of beers for everyone at the bar" that it will NEVER happen.





Joe

LeeFXDWG

Joe,

I actually wasn't hinting at that in anyway. I was trying to say that the UA furlough mitigation letter could be modified or completely scrapped during the new JCBA process.

For instance, the 10 year recall rights clause could be scrapped. That would mean if recalls ever occur on the UA side, the individual would have to accept (or go on MIL) or forfeit their position on the integrated list.

I don't think that that will happen. Just stating the fact current provisions are only in effect for the current UA CBA.

It has nothing to do with the SLI process.

Clearer?

Lee

Andy

CAL has 147 furloughees. UAL has 1437. In accordance with precedent, all furloughees should be merged at the bottom of the list.
I fully expect UALMEC to allow the 147 CAL furloughees to be merged into the active pilot list, in violation of ALPA M&A procedures. Why? Because that's UALMEC's standard way of doing business.
And based on my previous exchanges with CAL pilots on flightinfo, many CAL pilots are more than happy with the idea of having the bottom 1437 of the combined list being comprised solely of UAL furloughees.

You're preaching to the choir on 70 seaters. UALMEC will not do anything to limit 70 seaters, as it does not benefit the top ~500. If there was a 25 cent/hr increase in pay for the senior widebody pilots, they would agree to dump all narrowbodies and have that flying outsourced. Based on previous behavior which has been extremely consistent, UAL furloughees are worth less than two bits to the senior UAL pilots.

The 747 carve out is total BS. UAL pays the same for 747 and 777 pilots, but it's of no surprise to me that they'd be pushing for a carve out. Who benefits from the carve out? The top ~500 UAL pilots. And they'll be more than happy to sell out the entire rest of the UAL seniority list for that carve out.

Andy

As long as you're not defining the current CAL furloughees as line pilots, we're on the same page. If you're suggesting that an intent to recall letter is all it takes to turn them into active pilots, I will be the first to disagree with you. And if you want the PID to occur sometime in the future, I'll have to vehemently disagree with you.

syd111

probably right andy but that does not mean that the top 500 pilots on the list feel that way.

JMD16

Question on the point made in this quote. UAL has pilots on voluntary furlough with 1978 to 1997 DOHs. My understanding is your seniority number at your airline can never change. I.E. the pilot 1 senior to you will remain so as will the pilot 1 number junior. You believe the 1978 hire will be stapled to the bottom of the new list when this goes to the arbitrator?

boxer6

All good SLI points based on precedent. I think there are several points left out of the argument:

-New ALPA Merger policy includes longevity.
-There is still the no "windfall" aspect the arbitrator considers.

He must look at the totality of the seniority blend. This would be not just at the date of his decision but how that decision plays out over the next 30-40 years. With that in mind, he should look at the relative ages of both junior groups. I read somewhere that the average of the 2005+ CAL hires is around 30-35. Common sense tells me the 1999-2001 hires at UAL are around 40 pushing 50. Retirements numbers, without question, gives any furloughee an expectation to come back and enjoy the remaining years of their career. Many of them, I'm assuming, would expect to be in the top few percent at retirement. A simple staple of those 1400 would give the much younger CAL group a huge windfall in that they would have the top of the list in their later years but with many more of them having opportunities at higher paying widebodies much sooner than they would have otherwise expected. Something they will enjoy regardless of where the 1999-2001 UA hires are placed as they will retire 10-20 years before the CAL 2005+ hires. All this at the same time a staple will prevent, forever, the expectation those positions UAL guys would have had.

I would think the arbitrator would look at these issues that is addressed in ALPA merger policy in the two points above.

As as aside, I work for neither carrier but, at least to me, its stunningly obvious as to how all this went down. Again, my 2 cents that's worth less than that.