|
CAL Replacing UAL flying, not new flying
According to the December 2011 schedules The current UAL 512 DEN - HNL and the 508 HNL - DEN will be replaced by CAL airplanes and crews. This is clearly downsizing and replacement of traditional UAL routes and flying. This is not a new route being flown by CAL. It appears UAL Management is pulling another fast one and beginning the downsizing of DEN. The irony is it will cost more to do so because there will be the need to DH a CAL crew to DEN and lay them over for legality purposes. Unless of course the new CAL base opens in DEN at the same time they downsize the UAL base there. Ya got really not like these guys.
|
Originally Posted by Regularguy
(Post 997382)
According to the December 2011 schedules The current UAL 512 DEN - HNL and the 508 HNL - DEN will be replaced by CAL airplanes and crews. This is clearly downsizing and replacement of traditional UAL routes and flying. This is not a new route being flown by CAL. It appears UAL Management is pulling another fast one and beginning the downsizing of DEN. The irony is it will cost more to do so because there will be the need to DH a CAL crew to DEN and lay them over for legality purposes. Unless of course the new CAL base opens in DEN at the same time they downsize the UAL base there. Ya got really not like these guys.
I think you need to do some more research. UAL is starting to take over our flying at both IAH and EWR. Some examples are IAH-LIM. A UAL 767 crew flys in from SFO I believe and now does that flying. They will also start IAH-HNL-GUM flying as well on a UAL 777 shortly. EWR is losing EWR-ZRH amongst other Europe flying to IAD UAL crews. Two way street here my friend and expect it to continue and accelerate. Happened at DAL will happen here too. Conspiracy theory busted. |
757 Driver
What's amazing to me then is why aren't our MECs grieving or filing a law suite on any of this stuff? If we want a contract and a SLI then this should have been done. The RJ flying in EWR was a good move and actually forced the management to do something, as little as it was. Just so you know it was done in the Pan Am pacific purchase. Until there was a SLI no cross over flying was allowed. Sure put the fire under the management back then. But I'm getting old and times are different I guess. |
"Conspiracy theory busted. "
There is a conspiracy here by management, realign the combined airline while they delay the contracts. No contract, no pay raises, no work rule changes, all the RJs they can muster up! |
How is it pulling a fast one when we allow and sign off on it happening or we have no provisions against it.
|
Originally Posted by Regularguy
(Post 997400)
What's amazing to me then is why aren't our MECs grieving or filing a law suite on any of this stuff?
To be clear, ALPA did this. The company will get all the synergy they need, just none of the goodwill from labor. DDSS. |
Originally Posted by HSLD
(Post 997410)
Because both MEC's negotiated a transition agreement that expires (for many of the protections) in Dec. 2011. That is what's amazing to me, after a decade of misery, the MEC believed that we'd have a contract last Oct. and agreed to TA protections that only lasted for 18 months.
To be clear, ALPA did this. The company will get all the synergy they need, just none of the goodwill from labor. DDSS. |
As much as I don't like the TA, it should be noted that some parts of the agreement remain should an "Airline Party" exercise Partial Termination. The value of any remaining protection is certainly up for debate. As I mentioned earlier, the company will get the operational synergy they need at the expense of labor...again.
Section 13 Termination of this Transition and Process Agreement 13-A. Partial Termination. Unless the Parties agree otherwise, the Airline Parties may jointly terminate the provisions of Sections 4-D (Domiciles), 7-A (Furlough with regard to United Pilots only), 7-C (Flying Ratios), 7-D (Domicile and Base Protection), and 9 (ALPA Travel), individually or collectively, at any time on or after December 31, 2011, if the parties have not reached a tentative agreement on a JCBA by that date. 13-B. Termination by Agreement. The Parties may terminate this Transition and Process Agreement whenever they shall agree to do so. 13-C. Termination by Notice. An Airline Party or ALPA may terminate this Transition and Process Agreement on fifteen (15) days notice delivered to the other Parties at any time following termination of the Merger Agreement under Section 8.1 of that Agreement. 13-D. Effect of Termination. Termination of this Transition and Process Agreement will not affect a Party’s obligations under Sections 3, 7-B-(iv), 8, 11, 12, and applicable definitions in Section 1, nor will it affect any outstanding payment obligations under Section 15. A Pilot who has been employed pursuant to Section 7-B will continue, at his option, to be employed by the employing Airline in accordance with that Airline’s collective bargaining agreement; however, two (2) months after termination of this Transition and Process Agreement his pay rate going forward will |
Conspiracy theory #2. Mgmt has over 30 million tied to bonuses to have a SOC by Dec 31. BOD is hot at Smisdick over the slow JCBA with us but there is no reason to pay us early before the SOC is complete. We are negotiating the biggest part of the contract sections as we speak. I think there may be some momentum gaining in a few months towards the JCBA. If so, watch out for the fast track sales pressure. If not, then next year will be interesting.
|
Now dont you get reasonable here my friend.......fear is what feeds us!!!
WE ARE UNITED IN THIS CONTRACT!!! LETS GET THIS **** DONE!! j |
How dare they merger operations during a merger! I expect them to put the right airframe on the right route to make money. Forget the UAL pilots vs CAL pilots crap. It's all the new UAL pilots vs. management. Don't get offensive about "my base" or "my plane", it's all of ours now. There will be a lot of changes in the next few years. Some of it will hurt. Don't blame me, I didn't want to merge. ;)
|
Originally Posted by HSLD
(Post 997410)
Because both MEC's negotiated a transition agreement that expires (for many of the protections) in Dec. 2011. That is what's amazing to me, after a decade of misery, the MEC believed that we'd have a contract last Oct. and agreed to TA protections that only lasted for 18 months.
To be clear, ALPA did this. The company will get all the synergy they need, just none of the goodwill from labor. DDSS. You summed it up pretty well. When I read the TPA, I really couldn't believe it. And the only thing that could explain the disparity in protections was a belief in the Oct timeline. UFB. Frats, Lee |
Originally Posted by HSLD
(Post 997425)
As much as I don't like the TA, it should be noted that some parts of the agreement remain should an "Airline Party" exercise Partial Termination. The value of any remaining protection is certainly up for debate. As I mentioned earlier, the company will get the operational synergy they need at the expense of labor...again.
I believe I stated a very similar statement on the topic although not specifically related to the TPA. More or less said that mgmt would do everything else that they could to gain synergy and live with the separate ops if need be. In other words....what leverage? As to the TPA "airline party" wording, most of the folks had no idea ALPA isn't invited to the "party." That is a unilateral power by the now combined mgmt when they come to that expiration date. Most guys I chat with thought ALPA was in that "joint" concurrence requirement. [Moderator delete] Frats, Lee |
"Don't get offensive about "my base" or "my plane", it's all of ours now."
Then why can't I bid the 737 flying or the HNL flying I was already doing? This statement is ???? The only way to pressure management at any company is to prevent them from being king and doing anything they want. Without the surfs kings don't get fed. |
Originally Posted by Ottopilot
(Post 997460)
How dare they merger operations during a merger! I expect them to put the right airframe on the right route to make money. Forget the UAL pilots vs CAL pilots crap. It's all the new UAL pilots vs. management. Don't get offensive about "my base" or "my plane", it's all of ours now. There will be a lot of changes in the next few years. Some of it will hurt. Don't blame me, I didn't want to merge. ;)
Thats easy for you to say....being on the property. Shift all the flying to the CAL side so they can do it under your work rules...that will be great for speeding up any recalls! |
Looking at Apollo right now. I see a United flt 311 AND CO flt 135, both 767s operating 5 min apart non stop to HNL starting OCT 29. Like wingtip flts, NOT CODE SHARE (as they both have a UA and CO code share flt associated with them). On Jan 1, Feb 1, and Mar 1....UA 311 leaves DEN at 1145, CO 135 leaves at 1200. Weird. PLUS, on Mar 31 there is UA 383, a 0900 757 AND flt 311/135!! Three daily flights.
Sled |
Originally Posted by HSLD
(Post 997410)
Because both MEC's negotiated a transition agreement that expires (for many of the protections) in Dec. 2011. That is what's amazing to me, after a decade of misery, the MEC believed that we'd have a contract last Oct. and agreed to TA protections that only lasted for 18 months.
To be clear, ALPA did this. The company will get all the synergy they need, just none of the goodwill from labor. DDSS. Not sure this is accurate. The way I understand it, CAL ALPA had protections built into their existing CBA. UAL ALPA did not. So our MEC had to go beg for similar protections. As I recall, the Company was having none of it. It took MONTHS just to get the pos TA that we got. Certainly better than nothing...which is what we had. Sled |
Originally Posted by LeeFXDWG
(Post 997635)
HSLD,
I believe I stated a very similar statement on the topic although not specifically related to the TPA. More or less said that mgmt would do everything else that they could to gain synergy and live with the separate ops if need be. In other words....what leverage? As to the TPA "airline party" wording, most of the folks had no idea ALPA isn't invited to the "party." That is a unilateral power by the now combined mgmt when they come to that expiration date. Most guys I chat with thought ALPA was in that "joint" concurrence requirement. [Moderator delete] Frats, Lee "Most guys" may have thought that, but not the ALPA neg. committee. This was not a case of getting bamboozled. It was a case of UAL stiffing us, yet again. CAL ALPA had protections, we did not. After negotiating for some time, the TA is what we got. Would you rather still be negotiating a better TA? or a JCBA? Sled |
Who is flying what flying is not something to fight each other over. However, being a former Eastern pilot where the CAL management was mostly the same as it is now, IMHO, they are using the same tactics here. EAL flying was shifted over to CAL and eventually totally taken over.
There are some differences here that may make a difference. EAL and CAL were not merged. EAL pilots were trying to get a contract while CAL had come out of bankruptcy and were not represented by a union. Here CAL and UAL are negotiating for a JCBA. Hopefully this will make a difference. The way it looks, management is trying to play the same game here. What we must remember is that once we combine, we will be one airline if that ever happens. Let's not fight with each other and fight for a common goal. |
Originally Posted by Regularguy
(Post 997696)
.....Without the surfs kings don't get fed.
|
Originally Posted by Av8r786
(Post 1065308)
Who is flying what flying is not something to fight each other over. However, being a former Eastern pilot where the CAL management was mostly the same as it is now, IMHO, they are using the same tactics here. EAL flying was shifted over to CAL and eventually totally taken over.
There are some differences here that may make a difference. EAL and CAL were not merged. EAL pilots were trying to get a contract while CAL had come out of bankruptcy and were not represented by a union. Here CAL and UAL are negotiating for a JCBA. Hopefully this will make a difference. The way it looks, management is trying to play the same game here. What we must remember is that once we combine, we will be one airline if that ever happens. Let's not fight with each other and fight for a common goal. If this trend continues in the wrong direction, a large group of these pilots could reach the breaking point, and all depart at once while keeping seniority and recall rights at UAL intact. In addition other UAL pilots who bypassed the offer may feel compelled at this point to accept first rights at any training openings and also resign when finished. With the current CAL staffing model, this could make for one very interesting summer in the near future. SP |
The only "UAL" flying I'm doing is redeyes! You can have it. SEA-ORD. SFO-GDL. ANC-ORD. Etc.
|
Originally Posted by SONORA PASS
(Post 1065513)
The same TPA that would allow a shift of flying from UAL to CAL also has a poison pill that remains intact. The filling of CAL vacancies with UAL pilots, who do not relinquish recall rights at UAL going forward.
If this trend continues in the wrong direction, a large group of these pilots could reach the breaking point, and all depart at once while keeping seniority and recall rights at UAL intact. In addition other UAL pilots who bypassed the offer may feel compelled at this point to accept first rights at any training openings and also resign when finished. With the current CAL staffing model, this could make for one very interesting summer in the near future. SP |
I just read on the United forum that the first class at Continental has a number of Captains including a couple 747 ones that took voluntary furloughs. They are going back to be 737 FO's at $190/hour. If United decides to fulough again, a pilot can take a voluntary furlough, get paid I think it was 4 months severance, and start in a class at Continental the next day making the pay he was at United. So how how are they going to save money?
|
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
(Post 1065616)
... Furloughing from UAL is going to create the mother of all disasters for management. It will more than double training costs, as furloughed pilots would need to go to CAL indoc and then new airplane training. Then when UAL starts to recall, they go back and have to redo it all over again at UAL, thus decimating the CAL staffing...
Originally Posted by Coto Pilot
(Post 1065695)
... Captains including a couple 747 ones that took voluntary furloughs... are going back to be 737 FO's at $190/hour. If United decides to fulough again, a pilot can take a voluntary furlough, get paid I think it was 4 months severance, and start in a class at Continental the next day making the pay he was at United...
|
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
(Post 1065616)
You beat me too it. Furloughing from UAL is going to create the mother of all disasters for management. It will more than double training costs, as furloughed pilots would need to go to CAL indoc and then new airplane training. Then when UAL starts to recall, they go back and have to redo it all over again at UAL, thus decimating the CAL staffing. I hope even our management can see how disruptive and expensive that would be to their own airline
|
Originally Posted by dosbo
(Post 1065719)
The really fun part will be when other furloughees have to be hired at CAL when the first furloghees hired leave CAL for UAL. Wash, Rinse, Repeat. I wonder if they taught that in business school?
Also, if it comes to this, I am sure that timing one's last CAL flight will be part of the process. Glad those travel benefits from UAL will still work to eventually return from the remote outstations on a CAL aircraft one just resigned from! If they make it to the end of the UAL invite list of those that need jobs at CAL now, then it will be time for those that bypassed CAL to take a few weeks or months (for those that like extra sessions in the box) to visit IAH and sample the training. Kinda like an iceberg, there is more of it than meets the eye. ;) SP |
Originally Posted by SONORA PASS
(Post 1065716)
Spot on! This is a path management CANNOT afford to take... :cool:
|
Originally Posted by Coto Pilot
(Post 1065695)
I just read on the United forum that the first class at Continental has a number of Captains including a couple 747 ones that took voluntary furloughs. They are going back to be 737 FO's at $190/hour. If United decides to fulough again, a pilot can take a voluntary furlough, get paid I think it was 4 months severance, and start in a class at Continental the next day making the pay he was at United. So how how are they going to save money?
|
Enter Content
|
Originally Posted by SONORA PASS
(Post 1065513)
The same TPA that would allow a shift of flying from UAL to CAL also has a poison pill that remains intact. The filling of CAL vacancies with UAL pilots, who do not relinquish recall rights at UAL going forward.
If this trend continues in the wrong direction, a large group of these pilots could reach the breaking point, and all depart at once while keeping seniority and recall rights at UAL intact. In addition other UAL pilots who bypassed the offer may feel compelled at this point to accept first rights at any training openings and also resign when finished. With the current CAL staffing model, this could make for one very interesting summer in the near future. SP Increased flying caps in C2003 by 10-15%, allowing UAL to furlough additional pilots. Agreed to PBS in C2003, resulting in a 5-10% reduction in pilot staffing needs. Traded away furloughee longevity, offered by the company in TA1, for something for the senior pilots. Denied bond money to furloughees and retirees. Agreed to unlimited 70 seat RJs. And I'm sure that the list would be significantly longer if I put some effort into it. On the bright side, UALALPA did vote for the now industry standard furloughee medical/dental fund - just don't check the final voting results; it doesn't speak well for our UAL brothers. It passed by a razor, razor thin margin. UALALPA has dumped a lot of poison in the well for UAL furloughees; I suspect that at least a few of us will find ourselves more loyal to our CAL brothers than our UAL brothers.
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
(Post 1065616)
You beat me too it. Furloughing from UAL is going to create the mother of all disasters for management. It will more than double training costs, as furloughed pilots would need to go to CAL indoc and then new airplane training. Then when UAL starts to recall, they go back and have to redo it all over again at UAL, thus decimating the CAL staffing. I hope even our management can see how disruptive and expensive that would be to their own airline
Originally Posted by Coto Pilot
(Post 1065695)
I just read on the United forum that the first class at Continental has a number of Captains including a couple 747 ones that took voluntary furloughs. They are going back to be 737 FO's at $190/hour. If United decides to fulough again, a pilot can take a voluntary furlough, get paid I think it was 4 months severance, and start in a class at Continental the next day making the pay he was at United. So how how are they going to save money?
A more logical and likely step for UCH is to shrink UAL roughly equal to age 65 retirements. UCH management can retire UAL 757s in a measured manner to match those pilot retirements. Plus, UCH has a pretty decent cushion in the number of flight hours that they can fly each UAL pilot - anywhere from minimum guarantee (65 line/70 reserve) to monthly maximum (89 widebody, 95 narrowbody). So there's no need to furlough from the UAL side of the house. If the average pilot at UAL is close to monthly maximums, UCH can retire a few UAL aircraft. If the average UAL pilot is close to minimum guarantee, there's no need to retire aircraft; simply allow age 65 to eliminate the surplus. Now, step back for a moment. Now that CAL is hiring UAL furloughees, what is the incentive for UCH to grow the UAL side? Keep this in mind - the CASM on the CAL side is less than on the UAL side of the house. Let me break it down to your daily life. Let's assume that your Porsche's (this is for the UAL pilots I flew with prior to being furloughed the second time - showing me pictures of Porsches, third wives, and boats, yet needed age 65 because their pension was wiped out) gas tank is empty. You can pay $3.69 for premium at the Chevron or $3.74 for premium at the Exxon across the street. Which gas are you going to use? The bottom line is that air travel, much like gasoline, is a commodity where very few people are loyal one brand. And since UCH can get their flying done for less on the CAL side of the house, that's where the flying will go. My point here is that the UAL side will not grow until after JCBA. All growth will occur on the CAL side. At the same time, there will not be any further UAL furloughs unless CAL has furloughed all of their newly hired UAL refugees. Now, let's step back another ten paces. UAL furloughees hired at CAL will not be on probation - including those who were on probation when furloughed from UAL. That means that they can vote in ALPA from day one. I propose that we make it very clear to ALPA that unless there is full restoration of furloughee longevity for pay AND benefits (benefits are more important to me than pay, as I'm on year 4), your vote will be NO. With that in mind, I would encourage any UAL furloughee on the fence to accept a job a CAL. SP and all UAL furloughees, we UAL furloughees can have some control over getting credit for furlough time. I think that we have a golden opportunity here to get furlough credit. I don't know where CALALPA sits on furloughee longevity but from what I've read, they're a he11uva lot more loyal to their junior pilots. And since there are more than a few CAL ex-furloughees, I'm sure that we could reach critical mass very quickly. |
Cripes! I just looked up the difference between year 4 and year 11 pay. That's a pretty decent difference. We need to insist on furlough credit.
I'll also add that we should push for longevity credit from Date of Hire, not from date of IOE completion. |
Originally Posted by Andy
(Post 1067810)
SP, why would UAL furloughees up and quit CAL? What exactly has UALALPA done for us?
Increased flying caps in C2003 by 10-15%, allowing UAL to furlough additional pilots. Agreed to PBS in C2003, resulting in a 5-10% reduction in pilot staffing needs. Traded away furloughee longevity, offered by the company in TA1, for something for the senior pilots. Denied bond money to furloughees and retirees. Agreed to unlimited 70 seat RJs. And I'm sure that the list would be significantly longer if I put some effort into it. On the bright side, UALALPA did vote for the now industry standard furloughee medical/dental fund - just don't check the final voting results; it doesn't speak well for our UAL brothers. It passed by a razor, razor thin margin. UALALPA has dumped a lot of poison in the well for UAL furloughees; I suspect that at least a few of us will find ourselves more loyal to our CAL brothers than our UAL brothers. UCH management is not going to be furloughing from the UAL side while hiring on the CAL side. They can do the math and are aware of the associated costs. A more logical and likely step for UCH is to shrink UAL roughly equal to age 65 retirements. UCH management can retire UAL 757s in a measured manner to match those pilot retirements. Plus, UCH has a pretty decent cushion in the number of flight hours that they can fly each UAL pilot - anywhere from minimum guarantee (65 line/70 reserve) to monthly maximum (89 widebody, 95 narrowbody). So there's no need to furlough from the UAL side of the house. If the average pilot at UAL is close to monthly maximums, UCH can retire a few UAL aircraft. If the average UAL pilot is close to minimum guarantee, there's no need to retire aircraft; simply allow age 65 to eliminate the surplus. Now, step back for a moment. Now that CAL is hiring UAL furloughees, what is the incentive for UCH to grow the UAL side? Keep this in mind - the CASM on the CAL side is less than on the UAL side of the house. Let me break it down to your daily life. Let's assume that your Porsche's (this is for the UAL pilots I flew with prior to being furloughed the second time - showing me pictures of Porsches, third wives, and boats, yet needed age 65 because their pension was wiped out) gas tank is empty. You can pay $3.69 for premium at the Chevron or $3.74 for premium at the Exxon across the street. Which gas are you going to use? The bottom line is that air travel, much like gasoline, is a commodity where very few people are loyal one brand. And since UCH can get their flying done for less on the CAL side of the house, that's where the flying will go. My point here is that the UAL side will not grow until after JCBA. All growth will occur on the CAL side. At the same time, there will not be any further UAL furloughs unless CAL has furloughed all of their newly hired UAL refugees. Now, let's step back another ten paces. UAL furloughees hired at CAL will not be on probation - including those who were on probation when furloughed from UAL. That means that they can vote in ALPA from day one. I propose that we make it very clear to ALPA that unless there is full restoration of furloughee longevity for pay AND benefits (benefits are more important to me than pay, as I'm on year 4), your vote will be NO. With that in mind, I would encourage any UAL furloughee on the fence to accept a job a CAL. SP and all UAL furloughees, we UAL furloughees can have some control over getting credit for furlough time. I think that we have a golden opportunity here to get furlough credit. I don't know where CALALPA sits on furloughee longevity but from what I've read, they're a he11uva lot more loyal to their junior pilots. And since there are more than a few CAL ex-furloughees, I'm sure that we could reach critical mass very quickly. First thanks for a very well thought out post. I completely support efforts to secure furlough credit time for all furloughed pilots (UAL/CAL) as an absolute minimum requirement. Scope, Furlough Credit, and Work Rules need to be in order on any TA before even looking at any pages with Pay Rates. I would like to point out that the JCBA will be beneficial to both CAL and UAL pilots, and is clearly a common goal at this point. Pressure that can be applied by the UAL "new hire" pilots at CAL, would serve to benefit both groups of pilots in moving the process along much faster. The loyalty issue would be to both sides, and the sooner there are no sides the better. On the issue of United Pilots, we are United Pilots. We lack leverage, because we lack unity. We lack unity, because we don't really put it into practice. Our contracts embrace a reward system that has become so heavily skewed in favor of seniority, that it creates a huge divide among us. Seniority can certainly have a roll, but we have let it get way out of hand. Income, schedules, job security, and life style differences span a vast divide. We have made this once great career into a lottery game of hoping to pick a "winner". We are the ones that establish contracts with the painful and dire consequences for the large number of pilots that have to push the seniority reset button. This is why the first pay rate I will look at is YEAR 1. It is also why I consider longevity an absolute must, even when I myself hit the max several years ago. The absolute best career move WE can make, is to insure the job security and well being of all of those that work with US! SP |
Originally Posted by Andy
(Post 106781)
With that in mind, I would encourage any UAL furloughee on the fence to accept a job a CAL.
|
SP, outstanding points on Scope and Work Rules.
My list for the JCBA: 1) Scope 2) Work Rules 3) Furlough Longevity Credit . . . 199) Pay I assume that we'll be going with CAL's scope and UAL's work rules. To do otherwise is foolish. Pay changes. Lose scope/work rules and those are almost impossible to recover. |
Originally Posted by APC225
(Post 1067881)
We need to get as many furloughed UAL pilots as possible with CAL as quickly as possible, no matter the reason.
I was surprised at how fast they burned through the furlough list to date. Much faster than I expected. I suspect that some were deferring recall and will accept it once they are free from other committments and/or have a decent pad below them. I'm halfway through the list and am currently expecting to be in a March class; we'll see how that works out. If class size remains constant, I would expect the entire furlough list to have been gone through by next fall. I don't exect a JCBA to be completed before late 2012; it's not in UCH management's interest to reach an agreement prior to being ready to merge operations. The big holdup is IT integration and from the little I've read on the subject, it sounds like it'll take another year. |
Originally Posted by 757Driver
(Post 997396)
I think you need to do some more research. UAL is starting to take over our flying at both IAH and EWR.
Some examples are IAH-LIM. A UAL 767 crew flys in from SFO I believe and now does that flying. They will also start IAH-HNL-GUM flying as well on a UAL 777 shortly. EWR is losing EWR-ZRH amongst other Europe flying to IAD UAL crews. Two way street here my friend and expect it to continue and accelerate. Happened at DAL will happen here too. Conspiracy theory busted. |
Originally Posted by Andy
(Post 1067891)
And we need to organize as a cohesive group quickly.
. |
Originally Posted by FurloughedX2
(Post 1067970)
Careful, Andy Chen may be lurking on this forum! LOL.
|
[/QUOTE]
I don't know where CALALPA sits on furloughee longevity but from what I've read, they're a he11uva lot more loyal to their junior pilots. And since there are more than a few CAL ex-furloughees, I'm sure that we could reach critical mass very quickly.[/QUOTE] What did the CALALPA do for the furloughed guys - one example would be nice. Like you, when a CAL guy got furloughed, he got the shaft by the system. From where we sit you got better treatment from the UALALPA guys. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:31 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands