Again. What has UA done? I have numerous buddies that fly for L-UA and they openly state that you have guys as well that pick up trips etc...so it is hypocritical for you to talk from a mightier than thou on your perch of the world. Get real, we ( both) have our issues, so fix your own house first, then you may have credibility with your statements. I don't pretend to know all there is about L-UA pilot group and neither should you about CAL. Speak what you fatctually know and what you don't listen and learn...

 

People here do not accept jr./sr. manning as a matter of business. Those that do are ostracized.

 

Indeed my son. I always thought the intent of the JCBA was to get the best contract possible and the SLI to integrate the pilot groups. I guess some think they are intertwined.

 

I'm a bit surprised here... I was expecting crickets to this question. Thank you for stepping up and stating the OBVIOUS position that your union has taken. This approach, that you shamelessly relish in, will come back to bite you squarely on the ass. It's jagoffs like you that make me wish this forum wasn't anonymous. How about taking this line of BS to a forum where you have to sign your name?

 

Tell me about it! This assclown will reap what he sows -- karma is a b!tch! A sheep in a cyber wolf suit.....

 

Axl,

Maybe your comments were in reference to something else ewrbasedpilot stated that bothered you. If I missed that my apologies, but I do have a question.

I'm curious as to how a relative seniority integration is a "line of BS" in your view? To me it seems that this is the middle of the road view/position on SLI. It's not the extremes of either side (i.e. UAL pilots: staple the CAL guys; CAL pilots: staple the UAL pilots...we know neither is realistic and won't happen) but a more fair idea to integrate the list. Didn't DL/NW end up with something close to a relative seniority list within a few percent?

Honestly, I don't spend any time thinking about the SLI because we won't decide it, arbitrators will and I won't be on the team making the arguments. I don't even discuss it in the cockpit, but was curious since it seems to be brought up here.

 

Don't politicians call this defining the center? Who's center is center?

 

Relative seniority for everyone on both groups works well for the present and a few years into the future. The problem arises later because of the 10-15 year younger age difference that the CAL 2005-2009 hires are. A straight relative seniority will prevent many late 1990's+ L-UAL hires from left seat widebody positions (or left seat positions period) that they would otherwise expect sans the merger. With the much fewer widebodies that CAL has, you can mathematically compute how many of the CAL 2005+ hires would get these left seats that they would NOT have without the merger.

Even if the ISL favored junior L-UAL folks at the outset, some/most of 2005+ would STILL enjoy widebody flying (that they wouldn't otherwise have) the last 15 years of their career due to the fact 95% of the entire L-UAL pilots would be retired. The 2005+ hires aren't going to lose their seats. At worst, their progression may be just a bit slower now but the 2005+ hires at CAL are going to own the whole operation the last 15+ years of their career. An enviable position, indeed.

 

I wish that were more true. Check DCA/777/F/O for the 26th.

Better get busy ostracizing.

 

First, that wasn't the only post where ewrbasedpilot shows his @ss. Second, relative seniority is no more middle of the road than DOH is middle of the road. While stapling my be the extreme (in a vacuum with spherical objects), it's a theoretical extreme since it's even beyond the realm of impossibility. IMO, the more reasonable bounds of our arguments are relative seniority on your side vs date of hire on our side. Neither of those will happen either, but they actually lie on the bell curve! My arguments and feelings will have no impact on the final list, but I think I'm actually pretty reasonable in my expectations. Specifically, my problems with relative seniority is that it doesn't recognize the career expectations of UAL pilots, it doesn't recognize the distribution of positions within the seniority list (yes, we have more widebodies, which means more widebody fos), and it doesn't recognize the fact that our narrowbody fleet was shrunk beyond what is needed to operate a healthy airline. It is clear that a stand alone UAL was way too small in it's narrowbody lift and that would've been corrected (or NEVER DONE TO BEGIN WITH). Our seniority list, without the furloughee's) is a anomoly that was unsustainable and WOULD HAVE BEEN FIXED.

So yes, ewrbasedpilot is an ass, and his attitude is not doing any of your pilot group favors. I'm a reasonable person and I recognize that he represent a minority opinion, but I also know that human nature will make his comments stick with me more than the others.

Let's just get on with this merger process. It is my sincere hope that the reasonable pilots at CAL will push the leadership to a less combative posture. Make them sign the MFR. If not, I will continue to advocate to my reps that the CAL ALPA leadership be treated with suspicion and wariness. IMO your leadership is presenting a clear and present threat to the UAL pilots and they should be treated as such. ewrbasedpilot only strenghtens my opinion and resolve. It that's what you guys want then that's the way we will continue...even though none of us will benefit.