|
Originally Posted by Coto Pilot
(Post 1151478)
I spoke to a friend of mine this afternoon who is ex America West about the US Air demands. US Air demanded date of hire throughout the SLI and was told by the arbitrator to come up with something different. The America West pilots were fine giving longevity credit to the US Air pilots, but they wouldn't back down. I fully expect credit here. I flew a 500 a couple of days ago, and the planes United parked had more upgrades than the ones the CO side is flying today.
As a side note. Where are the L-UAL guys that were all over FI stating that the AAA furloughed pilots brought nothing to the table and deserved to be stapled? Where are the L-UAL guys that were calling the AAA furloughed pilots scabs and saying that they would never allow them on their jumpseat? It's kind of funny listening to you guys when the shoe is on the other foot. Those that are involuntarily furloughed on the "snapshot" date bring nothing to the table and will not be placed ahead of a pilot that was active on that date. |
BTW, it was 94 737s & 6 747-400s that were parked.
|
Originally Posted by sovt
(Post 1151520)
I believe that your friend is mistaken. My recollection is that the AAA MC moved off DOH to longevity during the process and the West MC stayed on relative position. If the West had moved to longevity AAA would still be in ALPA.
As a side note. Where are the L-UAL guys that were all over FI stating that the AAA furloughed pilots brought nothing to the table and deserved to be stapled? Where are the L-UAL guys that were calling the AAA furloughed pilots scabs and saying that they would never allow them on their jumpseat? It's kind of funny listening to you guys when the shoe is on the other foot. Those that are involuntarily furloughed on the "snapshot" date bring nothing to the table and will not be placed ahead of a pilot that was active on that date. I do not know of any UAL pilot that called a USAir pilot a "scab" or make any demands you say.....I remember 2000 very well. The last line in your post is funny--keep saying it and <MAYBE> it will come true. I highly doubt it. You might want to read ALPA merger policy a few more times. FWIW. |
Originally Posted by 47dog
(Post 1151472)
Street to Capt is a little narrow minded. The guy on the street has 13 years on the seniority list with 8 active. Remember, big pic.
We don't know how the list will end up. Fact is, UAL furloughed will get on the list above many CAL recent hires per ALPA merger policy. And CAL guys will be surprised at how well they did too in some cases. And of course thousands will feel "screwed" from both sides. We really have little control over it. What we DO have control over is understanding we are ALL together now, for our careers and need to work together, be unified. So where ever we end up individually on the new list, we are flying under the best contract possible. Good words, totally agree with para 2, the ISL will be based upon different buckets at the time of the merger, and snapshots throughout and we have little to no control. I like your words in para 3, and wish it were so, but we are not ALL together, and don't see it it changing for a long time. The name on the airplane maybe United but we want be United pilots until we get a JCBA, ISL and the cultures of both pilot groups learn the art of compromise for the greater good of the group. If we don't learn and demonstrate, we are a USAiR and AWA in the making, and the company will be making $Bs, laughing as we screw each other in the ground... |
Originally Posted by Sonny Crockett
(Post 1151434)
A UAL furloughed pilot hired in 99' has 8 (EIGHT) years on property with the company---they will go IN FRONT of the 2005 CAL hires. There seems to be some fantasy belief that all UAL furloughed pilots will be stapled.---aint gonna happen kids!
-nuff said and it is out of our control...lets get focused on a JCBA and getting J POS Pierce a kick in the ***. Also UAL 737's were 300 and 500 models, they WERE NOT ROUND DIAL airplanes, they are/were just like the 500's CAL has now. There seems to be another false belief that the UAL 737's were all old "round dial airplanes" and that is why they were parked--not so. Why do you make a distinction between a 300/500 round dial or glass? Operationally they are identical. Every major ailine has been ditching the 3/4/5 over the last ten years in favor of the NG or a320. The difference between Swa, cal, Alaska, etc and UAL is that UAL never had a plan to replace the 3/5 as they retired. UAL hasn't had a fleet renewal plan since the 90's. Ual's pilot reductions did not begin with the disposal of the 737 and it would have continued had the merger not occurred. And yes, I am aware that UAL had orders for 787 and a350's. But even those orders couldn't have renewed the fleet by the time thy were delivered. |
Originally Posted by Sonny Crockett
(Post 1151547)
I do not know of any UAL pilot that called a USAir pilot a "scab" or make any demands you say.....I remember 2000 very well.
The last line in your post is funny--keep saying it and <MAYBE> it will come true. I highly doubt it. You might want to read ALPA merger policy a few more times. FWIW. |
Originally Posted by CALFO
(Post 1151560)
Why do you make a distinction between a 300/500 round dial or glass? Operationally they are identical. Every major ailine has been ditching the 3/4/5 over the last ten years in favor of the NG or a320. The difference between Swa, cal, Alaska, etc and UAL is that UAL never had a plan to replace the 3/5 as they retired. UAL hasn't had a fleet renewal plan since the 90's. Ual's pilot reductions did not begin with the disposal of the 737 and it would have continued had the merger not occurred.
And yes, I am aware that UAL had orders for 787 and a350's. But even those orders couldn't have renewed the fleet by the time thy were delivered. ...and yes the 300/500's were parked to "right size" the merger....nuff said. |
Originally Posted by CALFO
(Post 1151560)
Why do you make a distinction between a 300/500 round dial or glass? Operationally they are identical. Every major ailine has been ditching the 3/4/5 over the last ten years in favor of the NG or a320. The difference between Swa, cal, Alaska, etc and UAL is that UAL never had a plan to replace the 3/5 as they retired. UAL hasn't had a fleet renewal plan since the 90's. Ual's pilot reductions did not begin with the disposal of the 737 and it would have continued had the merger not occurred.
And yes, I am aware that UAL had orders for 787 and a350's. But even those orders couldn't have renewed the fleet by the time thy were delivered. Did you see that UAL starts getting 787's in 2016? When does the CAL 787 order end????? hmmmm 2016!!! GET IT? |
"GET WHAT"?
CAL ordered 25 (from Boeing website) to be the US guinea pig on the 787. UAL order 25 787s and 25 A350s with options for 25 more of each. Did Cal order another 25 WBs or place options on 50 more in the future? |
Originally Posted by Andy
(Post 1151411)
Apples, oranges, and nuts.
AFAIK, SWA didn't right-size for the merger and the only potential issue was BWI. Neither DOT nor DOJ had any objections to the merger. Continental was 'odd man out' of the SkyTeam Alliance after the Delta-NWA merger was announced and they were being nudged out of the alliance. Their only real alliance choice was Star; there are way too many overlaps with AMR and OneWorld. In spite of UAL's downsizing, DOJ filed an objection to Continental joining the Star Alliance. Blue Skies For Continental Airlines In Bid To Join Star Alliance : Antitrust Law Blog On June 26, 2009, The U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed a 55-page objection to the DOT's April 7, 2009 tentative decision to grant global antitrust immunity to Continental for its participation in the Star Alliance. According to the DOJ, global immunity would result in substantially reduced competition in nonstop international air service markets, including transatlantic, transpacific and transborder flights. The DOJ argued that Continental would be removed as a major competitor for nonstop international flights, which would lead to higher prices for consumers. The DOJ also noted that barriers to entry in these markets were high due to the difficulty in obtaining FAA and DOT approvals, among other factors. The DOJ also expressed concern that domestic competition would be reduced due to spillover effects from the international coordinating activities of United and Continental, the third and fourth largest domestic air carriers. The DOJ recommended complete denial of Continental's request, but, if immunity was to be granted, the DOJ recommended carving out all nonstop overlap routes or limiting the grant of immunity to transatlantic routes. Again I ask, what right-sizing was done at Continental in order to mitigage DOJ objections? I find it ironic of the statement in bold above. Continental most certainly was not removed from the equation in the alliance. Our transatlantic flying continued to grow after joining Star. Our Central and South America presence is second only to AA. A few transpacific routes added, but the United was/is the stronger presence in the pacific region. In regards to mergers, that is where the DOJ has the authority to dictate any conditions and terms for its approval. I don't recall the DOJ putting anything but token conditions on the UAL/CAL merger. So in actuality there is no way to know what would have been the response had a bigger United (i.e. pre-furlough size) and same-size Continental announced a merger. Unless, of course, someone can show any statement or correspondence by a DOJ official back in 2008 or so that a meger between United and Continental would never be approved because United is too big already. That is not a slam against the United guys. I do understand how your group can feel the way. But, in many industries mergers happen between bigger and smaller rivals/competitors so unless a DOJ official gave some indication that it wouldn't fly, many of us are finding it hard to wrap our heads around what might just be conjecture or opinion. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:34 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands