bkaz

The way I read it, you no longer have the ability to pick up trip once you approach guarantee for the month. They call it leveling. Can any CAL pilots confirm?

757Driver

Wait, so years ago, when we were separate companies we agreed to hire each others furloughee's?

That's news to me but I'm pretty sure you've got your facts wrong. Our MEC insisted on management hiring your furloughee's at CAL instead of new hires via the T&PA. Absolutely the right thing to do but if we were as selfish as many on here seem to think, why on earth would we agree to that?

Blockoutblockin

6. “A” Aggressive Pickup Window
a. An aggressive pickup window will be made available to “A” Reserves
each day from 0900-1100 LBT for pickup of Trips. During the “A”
Section 25 - Scheduling Part 11 - Reserve Scheduling
25-24
Reserve aggressive pickup window, an “A” Reserve may pick-up Trips
within his Base, Equipment and Status that:
i. originate on the following day, and
ii. exactly match his Calendar Days of availability, except that a
Reserve available for five (5) or more days is allowed to pick up
Trips with four (4) Calendar Days of duty, unless the Pairing
operates with a double-augmented crew, and provided there are
no Pairings in Open Time matching his days of availability, and
iii. do not cause his pay value to equal or exceed a value more than
four hours and thirty minutes (4:30) less than his MPG, except
for a pilot who already has a pay value that is greater than four
hours and thirty minutes (4:30) less than his MPG, and who has
not been released by Crew Scheduling in accordance with
Paragraph G.10 below.

bkaz

Thanks for the correction. sounds like one more reason to call for a release when you get close to MPG.

chuckyt1

We have no "leveling" at UAL. Many times there are reserves with 80+ hours while others are at 40 or less. Myself, I like to do 35 hrs and get paid for 70 .

Also, we can pick up any trip that matches our days of availability, or minus one. A 3 day rsv can pick up a 3 or a 2 day, etc.

Cruz Clearance

As Management will insist that WE are to pay for it..

SoCentralRain

I agree with you that Section 1 will define when I will return to UAL. But work rules will need to dovetail with that. We shouldn't give an inch on scope and we should go forward with work rules. After all, the ones L-UAL has were hammered out in bankruptcy.

This CBA battle right now is not my first rodeo. UAL is my third major airline. I was never deluded enough to think that *poof* a JCBA would be at hand soon after SOC (or whenever in the recent past).

Again, Pierce decided he would get a back door deal for his L-CAL guys. This has shattered the status quo. Damage done. Believe whatever you want as to how Pierce said things "went down" that last week of 2011. However, enough questions remain unanswered about capt. Pierce's past to cast doubt on his ability to tell the truth. (When was he hired by CAL the first time? How long was he with Ornsteen as management with Mesa? How was he able to return to CAL with that same seniority? Just the fact, please.)

UAL management has done myself, my wife and children no favors for over 10 years now. And UAL-MEC has done several that kicked me in the balls. So, no, I'm not whining and crying that big bad CAL shoved one up my backside. There's plenty of blame to go around.

But I am ticked because the last thing that the supposed union "brothers" of L-UAL and L-CAL needed was any reason to bicker. Jay Pierce supplied one gigantic reason. He didn't have to do what he did--for unity's sake. But he did. And that grand canyon of animosity that he dug with his back door deal just makes management chuckle, smile at each other and delay, delay, delay any and all work on the JCBA. After all, why should management do anything to get one for us? Just ask Doug Parker how two seniority lists are working over at US Airways. It's the new normal.

The cheapest $40 million check the company ever wrote.

SCR

Andy

757Driver, it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong and certainly won't be the last time. Hiring the other company's furloughees was something that was discussed/agreed to when United and Continental pilots formed a strategic alliance in 2008. The pilot strategic alliance was formed 'just in case' there was a merger between the two companies.

As for the selfishness issue, I've read several items by kravit. He's a loose cannon and from my read of what occurred with respect to TPA extensions, Pierce did nothing wrong. I do, however, have issue with kravit stating that UALALPA got nothing out of the deal when they secured an additional year of furlough protections and flying ratio guarantees. He placed zero monetary value on the extension of those items which is pure horse manure, especially for the UAL pilots next in line to be furloughed.

skippy

1. Pierce isnt stupid. He has many agendas. Hiring ual furloughees? Please! We all know its in mother uals best interest to do that and uf pierce can say he secured that as a sign of good will to look good amongst the pilots- more power to him. Hes a mgmnt pilot who is mec chairman of a less wimpy and spiny pilit group than ual
2. Monetary value of no furloughing in 2012? Really? Things dont have value if they have ZERO chance of happening. Company isnt/cant furlough- so them extending that provision means nothing. We all know they are rightsizing and domiciling the 737s and airbuses in ord/den/iah. Flying ratios? Please
3. Deciding between which pilot group is dumber, less trustworthy, spiny, etc is like saying they won an even in the special olympics- sure they may win, but in the end, they r still retarded.

Andy

Skippy,
1) I don't trust Pierce. I don't trust anyone; they all have agendas.
2) While I agree with you on value of furloughs, I disagree with you about flying ratios as to the likelihood of happening. Many would disagree with you and me as far as the furlough risk. However, and this is key, UALALPA brought extension of furlough protections and flying ratios to the table with management.
IF we go with 'zero chance of happening' theory, that was a LOT of negotiating capital that UALALPA ****ed away. That would make this a UALALPA problem, not a Pierce problem.
3) Outstanding point; I completely agree with you.