UAL DEN Vice Chair Letter
11-17-2010, 09:08 AM
#41
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Originally Posted by Coto Pilot
To say that a furloughed United pilot has no career expectations is absurd.
Coto, a lot will have to do as to when they take the 'date' (time frame) at which they do the 'snap-shot' or method used when judging/factoring "Career Expectations" (CE). If the Tri-Panel opts to look at MAD (or points 'close' to it), I sure don't see how a furloughee (UAL) would expect to have much more than a fraction of "CE" (as compared to a CAL 2005 hire) when your still sitting number "700, 900, 1100, 1300, or 1400+" deep waiting to be called back?? Other than minor attrition prior to Dec 2012-age 65, how do you see/explain under the old UAL pre-merger business plan that UAL furloughee's would have been brought back in mass droves?? Any/or all a-c orders that were posted in Dec 2009 were not to show up till 2016 or later.....in light of the above.....don't see how being on the street for 5-6 yrs, and possibly adding another 4-5 yrs onto that boding well for a "CE" formula.
Bottom line....if a "Furloughed" UAL pilot has "Some", "A little", or "A lot" of "CE" when sitting on the street, I guess guys like 320Fumes as a 2005 hire would have exponentially that much MORE weight as a WORKING (and NO period of furlough) pilot when factoring in "CE".....no??
11-17-2010, 09:20 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Le Bus
Posts: 382
[QUOTE=SKMarz;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.
Why can't they admit it? Simple, greed. They're looking at the world through "I'm gonna jump up at least 1400 numbers" glasses and will use any rationalization to justify it.
Our MEC is working to get the furloughed pilots their rightful place on the SLI and will do all they can in front of the arbitrator. This won't be decided by a few internet tough guys, myself included.
If it were up to me I'd give them DOH for the crap they and their families have been through....CAL pilots feelings be damned.
Why can't they admit it? Simple, greed. They're looking at the world through "I'm gonna jump up at least 1400 numbers" glasses and will use any rationalization to justify it.
Our MEC is working to get the furloughed pilots their rightful place on the SLI and will do all they can in front of the arbitrator. This won't be decided by a few internet tough guys, myself included.
If it were up to me I'd give them DOH for the crap they and their families have been through....CAL pilots feelings be damned.
11-17-2010, 10:44 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
Parades and rain.
Not wanting to rain on anyone's parade here, but the thought did just occur to me that from 2007 to 2009 the entire US aviation industry reduced their overall asm's by around 7% (I eye-balled that off of Data Elements), and as I recall United was most definitely not alone in parking significant amounts of iron. In fact it is that industry "right sizing" exercise that so dramatically turned around the balance sheets of every legacy carrier during the last 18 months.
Point is . . . maybe just maybe, UAL management parked the 737 fleet because it made sense from a business standpoint. I suppose its possible that management would close a profitable branch of business in hopes of encouraging a merger, but not overly likely. In fact I just posed the question to my wife who is a career finance executive who has worked at numerous businesses at the CFO level or just below and when I posited the question of did she think it possible her response was first to laugh hard and then ask "Are you serious?" So I'm guessing she doesn't consider it likely either.
Of course that and a buck will get you a cup of coffee, but just thought I'd put out a little point counter point to keep things "real".
Point is . . . maybe just maybe, UAL management parked the 737 fleet because it made sense from a business standpoint. I suppose its possible that management would close a profitable branch of business in hopes of encouraging a merger, but not overly likely. In fact I just posed the question to my wife who is a career finance executive who has worked at numerous businesses at the CFO level or just below and when I posited the question of did she think it possible her response was first to laugh hard and then ask "Are you serious?" So I'm guessing she doesn't consider it likely either.
Of course that and a buck will get you a cup of coffee, but just thought I'd put out a little point counter point to keep things "real".
11-17-2010, 11:06 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: IAH 320 CA
Posts: 190
Considering the announcement today of CAL starting service from ORD to FLL and PBI on 737's, there is one of two answers available:
A. UAL pulled out of those markets because they were losing money, and now they are stupid enough to try and re-enter the market.
B. UAL was making money in those markets, but had to pull out around the time they parked the guppy fleet and furloughed over 1000 pilots.
If you answered B, I think you may begin to have the requested "proof" of Tilton's rightsizing this airline for a merger.
A. UAL pulled out of those markets because they were losing money, and now they are stupid enough to try and re-enter the market.
B. UAL was making money in those markets, but had to pull out around the time they parked the guppy fleet and furloughed over 1000 pilots.
If you answered B, I think you may begin to have the requested "proof" of Tilton's rightsizing this airline for a merger.
11-17-2010, 11:09 AM
#45
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
[QUOTE=SOTeric;902700]
I can 'appreciate' your opinion, but can you please provide me definitive, undisputable, B&W evidence of your claim as the furloughs were levied specifically to the CAL & UAL Merger of May 2010?? I would honestly like to see their 'master game plan' that was laid-out years ago as it points specifically to this named merger....one that is laid out from start-to-finish as your claim. Unable to provide the specifics of that claim?? Then we can all take that as shear conjecture, and nothing more.....and YES Flyguppy....I ask you too. The example does NOT hold water. SHOW B&W specific's please.
I would be the first to say what happened to those who were 'pawns' in Tilton's game is nothing short of tragic.....However for you to say those who resided on the "otherside" of the fence 'owe' them direct repercussions for something they were/nor are part of is anything/everything beyond "Absurd" (as your friend Coto remarks).
You are correct....As your MEC/MC will fight their case, so will our MEC/MC. One thing resides certain, in the end, NEITHER side will hold the conch of 'say' when the music stops....It will be the Tri-Panel's findings that we will live by.
Originally Posted by SKMarz
We were furloughed to make this merger happen.
I would be the first to say what happened to those who were 'pawns' in Tilton's game is nothing short of tragic.....However for you to say those who resided on the "otherside" of the fence 'owe' them direct repercussions for something they were/nor are part of is anything/everything beyond "Absurd" (as your friend Coto remarks).
You are correct....As your MEC/MC will fight their case, so will our MEC/MC. One thing resides certain, in the end, NEITHER side will hold the conch of 'say' when the music stops....It will be the Tri-Panel's findings that we will live by.
11-17-2010, 11:24 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot
Okay, who's still working, and who's unemployed?
KC
11-17-2010, 11:35 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by SoCalGuy
Disclaimer/No confusion....I am NOT advocating a "Swingliner" (for those who no 'comprende'..."STAPLE") solution here.
Coto, a lot will have to do as to when they take the 'date' (time frame) at which they do the 'snap-shot' or method used when judging/factoring "Career Expectations" (CE). If the Tri-Panel opts to look at MAD (or points 'close' to it), I sure don't see how a furloughee (UAL) would expect to have much more than a fraction of "CE" (as compared to a CAL 2005 hire) when your still sitting number "700, 900, 1100, 1300, or 1400+" deep waiting to be called back?? Other than minor attrition prior to Dec 2012-age 65, how do you see/explain under the old UAL pre-merger business plan that UAL furloughee's would have been brought back in mass droves?? Any/or all a-c orders that were posted in Dec 2009 were not to show up till 2016 or later.....in light of the above.....don't see how being on the street for 5-6 yrs, and possibly adding another 4-5 yrs onto that boding well for a "CE" formula.
Bottom line....if a "Furloughed" UAL pilot has "Some", "A little", or "A lot" of "CE" when sitting on the street, I guess guys like 320Fumes as a 2005 hire would have exponentially that much MORE weight as a WORKING (and NO period of furlough) pilot when factoring in "CE".....no??
Coto, a lot will have to do as to when they take the 'date' (time frame) at which they do the 'snap-shot' or method used when judging/factoring "Career Expectations" (CE). If the Tri-Panel opts to look at MAD (or points 'close' to it), I sure don't see how a furloughee (UAL) would expect to have much more than a fraction of "CE" (as compared to a CAL 2005 hire) when your still sitting number "700, 900, 1100, 1300, or 1400+" deep waiting to be called back?? Other than minor attrition prior to Dec 2012-age 65, how do you see/explain under the old UAL pre-merger business plan that UAL furloughee's would have been brought back in mass droves?? Any/or all a-c orders that were posted in Dec 2009 were not to show up till 2016 or later.....in light of the above.....don't see how being on the street for 5-6 yrs, and possibly adding another 4-5 yrs onto that boding well for a "CE" formula.
Bottom line....if a "Furloughed" UAL pilot has "Some", "A little", or "A lot" of "CE" when sitting on the street, I guess guys like 320Fumes as a 2005 hire would have exponentially that much MORE weight as a WORKING (and NO period of furlough) pilot when factoring in "CE".....no??
Your right, maybe an 05 CAL should go in front of a 99 UAL hire,HOWEVER, the comparison gets very warped when you compare a summer 99 UAL hire to a CAL late hire hanging on to the bottom. I think most of us 2 timers who have the most to lose would hope for is some weight given to the other two criteria in the merger policy besides status. If ALPA's policy were a straight staple in every case why not just state that plainly in policy and we can just to a robo-SLI right now and be over with it? That is the scenario we are all so vehemently opposed to. Any other outcome and I personally can live with.
This shouldn't be fun for anybody-
KC
11-17-2010, 11:37 AM
#49
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Originally Posted by kc135driver
Funny, would the table be turned if one was recalled one day prior to the merger announcement?
KC
KC
"IF"??......If a "frog" had wings, he wouldn't be dragging his a$$ either.
That and a buck will buy ya a cup of coffee.
11-17-2010, 11:37 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by Flyguppy
Considering the announcement today of CAL starting service from ORD to FLL and PBI on 737's, there is one of two answers available:
A. UAL pulled out of those markets because they were losing money, and now they are stupid enough to try and re-enter the market.
B. UAL was making money in those markets, but had to pull out around the time they parked the guppy fleet and furloughed over 1000 pilots.
If you answered B, I think you may begin to have the requested "proof" of Tilton's rightsizing this airline for a merger.
A. UAL pulled out of those markets because they were losing money, and now they are stupid enough to try and re-enter the market.
B. UAL was making money in those markets, but had to pull out around the time they parked the guppy fleet and furloughed over 1000 pilots.
If you answered B, I think you may begin to have the requested "proof" of Tilton's rightsizing this airline for a merger.
KC
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
