Originally Posted by Andy (Post 1138065)

A 1999 hire doesn't have 10 years of furlough time. The most time that any furloughee would have would be a 2001 hire; probably ~8 years of furlough time. That means he's got 3 years time on property. Are you saying that with his 3 years on property and 8 years on the street, he should be stapled below a 2008 CAL hire?

I could make a very strong argument for a snapshot date being taken in 2008 based on Continental joining the Star alliance. As a result of DOJ's objections, LUAL dumped the 737 fleet. Will UALALPA's lawyer push for a snapshot date in 2008 based on CAL joining the Star alliance? I don't know but I bet he's thought about it.
In 2008, a 1999 hire had 3+ more years on property than a 2005 CAL hire. Just another perspective.

Fair and equitable is in the eye of the beholder. And it'll be decided by an arbitration panel, with each side's lawyers bringing forth their best arguments. LCAL has Katz; LUAL has Freund. Nothing that is said on these boards will change that.

Originally Posted by ualratt (Post 1138063)

Why do you believe that I'm not going to like it at all? That particular post was in response to a lame (my cocoa is bigger than your bean) statement about CO 757s ETOPS certification and why UAL's were not.

In the broader context of your post though, the next time you personally have the opportunity to put a particular type of equipment in a particular market, I'm certain that you won't hesitate to step up. Today however, that function is purposely left out of the pilots' hands and it's no secret. I'm sure you'll agree that UAL's management goal is for pilots to just show up, fly their trip and go home (good for some, not so good for others). There's no better example of how management wants very little influence coming from the brass hatters on how the company is run, as evident in their exclusion of Pilot SMEs in the integration of the airline. It's a tech company, remember? So consider this to be a full blown assault to render the pilot powerless by eradicating any shred of equal leadership by virtue of the experience they bring to the table (as in your case).

Your observations, however well intended, are a sore to management. Instead, well paid metric oriented/spreadsheet people, whose picture of the world is formed out of data streaming from a 21 inch screen, produces the ideas that promises great results while you witnessed otherwise. Inefficiency, incompetence, inconvenience(as in passengers)?? Who cares when they're still showing a huge profit.

I would think most pilots do appreciate the legit worries your sources feel. They (your sources) only need to move that apprehension further along and up the management tree because all that great fluff (painting airplanes, shifting metal, great route structure, whatever) won't blow until the other bottom line, well paid pilots with the decency of a respectable QOL, and the opportunity to enjoy it with "JOB PROTECTION," is factored into the metric.

Until then there is little else besides flying the contract, that should be done, and never forget that you are a pilot at a Fortune 100 company!!!

Originally Posted by EWR73FO (Post 1138016)

But in the same breath do you also find it acceptable for a 1999 with 10 years of furlough to be placed in front of a 2005 hire that has been a 737 captain at CAL?

I'm not advocating a staple and I don't think most CAL pilots want a senority grab. We want the same thing most UAL pilots want; a fair and equitable integration. Just what that is, remains with the MC's and the arbitrator.

Originally Posted by IAHB756 (Post 1138073)

In 2008, the CAL 2005 hire was able to bid and hold 737 captain.

Take care

Originally Posted by kc135driver (Post 1138088)

Not trying to take away from your argument but I think a better comparison of the sides will be everybody's relative position on their list at whatever date is used for the snapshot. We all know that every airline has unusual periods where due to supply, demand and the crapiness of an assignment, a bid will go extremely junior.

Originally Posted by kc135driver (Post 1138080)

Problem is, and we all know it, both of our MC's will argue from these extreme positions, giving the arbitrator a pretty wide range to miss and get it wrong, in my opinion. It is basic arbitration theory, the closer the sides are going into arbitration the more equitable the decision.

Originally Posted by EWR73FO (Post 1138016)

But in the same breath do you also find it acceptable for a 1999 with 10 years of furlough to be placed in front of a 2005 hire that has been a 737 captain at CAL?

I'm not advocating a staple and I don't think most CAL pilots want a senority grab. We want the same thing most UAL pilots want; a fair and equitable integration. Just what that is, remains with the MC's and the arbitrator.

Originally Posted by kc135driver (Post 1138088)

Not trying to take away from your argument but I think a better comparison of the sides will be everybody's relative position on their list at whatever date is used for the snapshot. We all know that every airline has unusual periods where due to supply, demand and the crapiness of an assignment, a bid will go extremely junior.

Originally Posted by kc135driver (Post 1138080)

No and I think your numbers are a little off. Hired in 1999. As of when the merger was announced (the second time), May 2010, I had almost 8 years on property and a little over 3 years furlough. So compared to a 2005 CAL hire I had twice as much time on property. How that balances against a min-time CAL captain, those are not the details I'm trying to posture on here. There is a give and take for sure.

Personally, I fear being integrated so far back in the pack that any career advantage I originally had as a younger new-hire in 99 is completely wiped out by a younger group of CAL new-hires in the 2005-2007 range. Everybody likes to point out the large,steady wave of retirements over the horizon, but for me and many in my range, I will NEVER make it up.

I know most of you guys don't want a staple job, anymore than I'd want a DOH situation. It is not right. Problem is, and we all know it, both of our MC's will argue from these extreme positions, giving the arbitrator a pretty wide range to miss and get it wrong, in my opinion. It is basic arbitration theory, the closer the sides are going into arbitration the more equitable the decision. Sorry, I don't buy into the theory floating around here that it is all out of hands. BS! It is and will be in the hands of our elected reps.