Originally Posted by Blockoutblockin

I'm not trying to start a flame war but this is an interesting issue. As I see it, an issue presents itself where furloughees are offered recall not only once but twice and refuse recall each time. Now throw in newhires into the mix and a strong argument could be presented before a judge that newhires now trump furloughees who were offered employment and refused. Of course this doesn't have anything to do with the right to recall but rather where someone would be placed on the integrated seniority list.

Originally Posted by HSLD

For full disclosure, anyone interested in applying to the new United should understand that there are 1436 furloughed UAL pilots that still have seniority numbers and recall rights.

Some of the furloughees have accepted class dates on the CAL side, but still have recall rights (and senority numbers) on the United side. It may sound confusing, but here's the important thing to remember:

New hires at the (new) United have 1436 pilots that can elect to return to the property when the UAL side of the operation recalls. At some point in the future there will be an SLI and the furloughed UAL pilots will return to a combined company ahead of those hired in 2012 and beyond. Pilots hired to either the CAL or UAL side of the new United should be prepared to be on the bottom of the list for at least 3-4 years. Some furloughees may not return so forecast attrition based on age 65 retirements vs. returning furloughees may accelerate. Additional flying, changes in work rules, and the number of furloughees that elect to return could also create the need for additional manpower. It's important for potential new hires to understand that the new United is not a place where you'll be off reserve anytime soon.

Originally Posted by Blockoutblockin

I'm not trying to start a flame war but this is an interesting issue. As I see it, an issue presents itself where furloughees are offered recall not only once but twice and refuse recall each time. Now throw in newhires into the mix and a strong argument could be presented before a judge that newhires now trump furloughees who were offered employment and refused. Of course this doesn't have anything to do with the right to recall but rather where someone would be placed on the integrated seniority list.

Originally Posted by RandyBMC

Wow, you are really clueless. Take a look at history, current ALPA policy, and what has already been taken as a snapshot to see the holes in your idea.

I also love the fact that you have completely discounted the furloughee's time flown at UAL. I was hired at the beginning of 2000, and have flown close to 8 years after removing the time served on the street during my two furloughs. I have not taken the "recall" to CAL (it is not one by the way, which is why I put it in quotes).

When exactly were you hired at CAL? Where would my 8 years time (not total time since hired, but time sitting in a UAL seat) get me at your current seniority list?

But again, you are totally clueless to completely disregard any of the above FACTS and think that some guy right off the street hired in 2012 should go in front of me after my two furloughs, 8 years served and 10,000 hours in this industry.

Nice.

Randy Webb
Currently in Dubai, 2172

Originally Posted by bkaz

Have you read the TPA? I don't think there is any opinion involved.

Originally Posted by RandyBMC

Wow, you are really clueless.

Randy Webb
Currently in Dubai, 2172

Originally Posted by Blockoutblockin

You should attempt to restrain your emotion. It has absolutely no value to you in a court of law. The issue that I presented is from the point of view of a new hire. A new hire certainly could present his case to a court regardless what you think.

Originally Posted by Blockoutblockin

You should attempt to restrain your emotion. It has absolutely no value to you in a court of law. The issue that I presented is from the point of view of a new hire. A new hire certainly could present his case to a court regardless what you think. And to point out an old saw judges wear black robes not white robes. Your passionate opinion is just that. In the end it is a judge or jury or arbitrator who will make the determination as to what is relevant or not.