Originally Posted by A320fumes (Post 902577)

It's outright LUDICROUS to suggest that a UAL furloughee should be placed ahead of a working pilot. I am a Summer '05 hire and things could be better, but they are damned good from where I sit in comparison. I personally bid reserve at home, flying no more than 4 days/ month for about 9k/month and less than 100 numbers from my recently lost CA seat. An LOS integration would put me 800 numbers below UAL's most Sr furloughee. I can't even believe they would suggest it.I guess being a furloughed UAL "Brain Surgeon" is better than being a gainly employed CAL Pilot, in UAL's opinion.

Originally Posted by Coto Pilot (Post 902585)

......... How does this pilot have lesser "career expectations" than a Continental pilot that was hired 6 years later?

Originally Posted by kc135driver (Post 902596)

Fumes-

Your right in respect that I don't see you or any other CAL as my personal enemy, this is not between us, this is a result of the actions of management.

I hear what you are saying about status and your career at CAL. I am a 99 UAL hire. I was recalled about the same time you were a newhire. As we know, this career has more twists and turns than a roller coaster. Next month CAL could theoretically furlough 10% as 70 seat RJs grow (not suggesting it and definitely not in favor, just stating that no matter where you work you face equal risk to ones livelihood - to believe an employer is immune to this is ignorance and vanity). So you are in a place of bliss, I am sincerely happy for you and wish to not change that. My contention is I was currently projected to retire #10. If I am stapled it becomes something like 900, still respectable but clearly a loss of career expectations, especially given that you would be ahead of me, possibly flying an aircraft never on CAL's property. I know the arguments, time, contracts and growth will heal all inequalities. If this is the case when why should anybody care how SLI ends?

My contention is still the following, inactive status does not represent zero career expectations. Anybody can clearly see that with retirements alone UAL will recall withing the next 12-18 months. Trying to stack CAL numbers during this time is grabbing for future career expectations you never had. It is the difference between trying to watch a movie frame by frame or in motion, just because the reel may break doesn't mean that the rest of the film is destroyed. Look at 3rd qtr results, nobody would argue that UAL is somehow in less viable footing with CAL.

Place a lifelong fence between us, again, this is not between us personally and the best outcome is probably for us to suffer to some degree. However, a simple staple without regard to longevity is not acceptable.

We are in uncharted territory, legally speaking. Each outcome revolves around the merits of each case and ALPA merger policy HAS changed as a result of Nicolau, like it or not. While precedents may be referenced, this is not case law.

Again, appreciate the carefully chosen words, this subject gets us all worked up, including me. I think we'd both agree that at some point we are going to have to work together and get past this, regardless of the outcome. For somebody like me, it may very well mean never coming back, however, it is what it is. However, a lifetime of resenting your colleagues is not what I want nor beneficial to any of us.

KC

Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot (Post 902594)

Ask a TWA pilot about career expections when AMR hired them after the buyout. They're on the street, and probably won't be called back for many more years, if at all. To say that furloughed pilots expectations to retire #1 is accurate, is a bit off. Our #1 FA THOUGHT she'd be number one forever, but with the combined forces she'll be #5. Yep, from what we've heard, she's no longer the queen bee................and supposedly the #1 FA at UAL was hired in 1949. I guess some people NEVER get a life........ And how is it the most "viable" legacy carrier just about went under two or three years ago? Just wondering............

Originally Posted by SKMarz (Post 902619)

TWA was acquired. Huge Difference. We were furloughed to make this merger happen. Why can't most CAL pilots admit this? I suspect it is because they fear it might mean the UAL furloughees shouldn't be stapled.

Originally Posted by SKMarz (Post 902619)

TWA was acquired. Huge Difference. We were furloughed to make this merger happen. Why can't most CAL pilots admit this? I suspect it is because they fear it might mean the UAL furloughees shouldn't be stapled.

No one has suggested taking someone elses job. You will very likely end up benefiting from the hose job done on us, so what the heck do you have to complain about? In my previous post, I said I might just puke if I have to hear one more time from CAL folks that UAL pilots were all excited about this merger. Most of us weren't, we knew why we were being furloughed and we knew what the likely outcome would be. Your response? That you are going to puke if one of is placed ahead of a CAL 2005 CAPTAIN. Hmmm, I just guessing that's your seniority. In my post I didn't suggest that I should be placed ahead of you, but being stapled behind someone who has two to three years on property when I have eight is getting hosed, pure and simple. I have no control over it, so I don't lose sleep over it because that's the way life goes sometimes. But you are so full of righteous indignation and I just wonder why you are so unable and unwilling to see any point of view other than your own.

Originally Posted by bearcat (Post 902624)

I've read all of your posts. You are going to have an unhappy career. Good luck.

Originally Posted by intrepidcv11 (Post 902622)

Because there is absolutely no way it will ever be proven. That is unless you are able to conduct a CIA style operation that reveals written proof that Sismek (who wasn't even CEO) convinced Tilton to cut to the bone then then merge. Tilton did what he did because he is a prick and had a contractual loophole to exploit in blowing up the RJ fleet.

And never mind the fact CAL parked a large number of Classic 73's the same time you did. You can argue it was the price of oil, but who is to say that wasn't slimming down for merger. Like it or not you are speculating. We can play the speculation game all we want with merger arguments, but I doubt any arbitrator is going to take any consideration into an alternative view of why UAL parked the guppies.

Originally Posted by kc135driver (Post 902596)

Fumes-

Your right in respect that I don't see you or any other CAL as my personal enemy, this is not between us, this is a result of the actions of management.

I hear what you are saying about status and your career at CAL. I am a 99 UAL hire. I was recalled about the same time you were a newhire. As we know, this career has more twists and turns than a roller coaster. Next month CAL could theoretically furlough 10% as 70 seat RJs grow (not suggesting it and definitely not in favor, just stating that no matter where you work you face equal risk to ones livelihood - to believe an employer is immune to this is ignorance and vanity). So you are in a place of bliss, I am sincerely happy for you and wish to not change that. My contention is I was currently projected to retire #10. If I am stapled it becomes something like 900, still respectable but clearly a loss of career expectations, especially given that you would be ahead of me, possibly flying an aircraft never on CAL's property. I know the arguments, time, contracts and growth will heal all inequalities. If this is the case when why should anybody care how SLI ends?

My contention is still the following, inactive status does not represent zero career expectations. Anybody can clearly see that with retirements alone UAL will recall withing the next 12-18 months. Trying to stack CAL numbers during this time is grabbing for future career expectations you never had. It is the difference between trying to watch a movie frame by frame or in motion, just because the reel may break doesn't mean that the rest of the film is destroyed. Look at 3rd qtr results, nobody would argue that UAL is somehow in less viable footing with CAL.

Place a lifelong fence between us, again, this is not between us personally and the best outcome is probably for us to suffer to some degree. However, a simple staple without regard to longevity is not acceptable.

We are in uncharted territory, legally speaking. Each outcome revolves around the merits of each case and ALPA merger policy HAS changed as a result of Nicolau, like it or not. While precedents may be referenced, this is not case law.

Again, appreciate the carefully chosen words, this subject gets us all worked up, including me. I think we'd both agree that at some point we are going to have to work together and get past this, regardless of the outcome. For somebody like me, it may very well mean never coming back, however, it is what it is. However, a lifetime of resenting your colleagues is not what I want nor beneficial to any of us.

KC