Originally Posted by Zoomie (Post 1247597)

While I feel sorry for those at UAL who have been totally screwed by their parent company, what's done is done. This post is about some hard love and a reality check.

Originally Posted by cadetdrivr (Post 1247642)

Two points:

1) The "virtual merger" with CAL did happen in 2008 and put into motion all of the pieces on the chess board that allowed the actual merger to happen (i.e. sail through DOT and DOJ review). This included systemwide code-sharing and the actual combination and/or coordination of certain departments long before the legal merger actually occurred. From a pilot perspective, UAL and CAL suddenly didn't compete on more than a handful of mainline routes as a result of the preparations...just ask a CAL or UAL commuter that suddenly lost mainline service to their base while the other company did the flying.

2) UAL was contractually required (per the Star agreement as a consequence of the failed 2000 merger attempt) to first have discussions with USAir before merging with anybody. It was theater, but UAL had to cross the "t's" and dot the "i's".



That is a straw man argument. I don't know of any UAL pilots that think they should suddenly go from F/O (or furloughed) and bump a CAL pilot out of the left seat.

What they are making a lot of noise about, however, is pay for longevity (i.e. match the current DAL contact) where the hourly pay rate is determined by DOH. This is a totally separate issue than longevity for SLI and would benefit pilots on both sides of the fence who experienced any time on furlough since 9/11.

Originally Posted by jsled (Post 1247662)

Some valid points for sure, esp. regarding Category and Status. Junior UAL pilots, esp. furloughees, generally do not fair well in that argument.....but....like Airhoss and Motch were discussing above, there has to be a balance. Career Expectations: A UAL fellow like myself hired in 1997, was going to retire 158/8700 or in the top 1.8%. Then, after shinkage, but before the merger it was about 158/7000 or the top 2.2%. Well, 2.2% of the combined airline of 12000 is 264. IOW, using a relative seniority argument for Career Expectations, my retirement number should slide about 106 numbers.

This is one thing that makes the SLI so hard here. Balancing the larger number of narrowbody Captain slots at CAL with the larger number of widebody Captain and F/O slots at UAL. I don't think I should take your n/b Captain seat tomorrow, but at the same time, I don't want you to take my w/b Captain seat in 5 or 10 years. Sure, some CAL guys will say "fence it then...I don't want it" but that is total BS. I don't retire until 2033. We gonna fence it till then???? NOPE. And just cause some SAY they don't want it, what happens in 10 years?? Talk is cheap.

Now Logevity...that's the third thing. Have not seen this word in an ALPA merger policy since I have been in ALPA (1991). That is a can of worms. You made a solid argument regarding Category and Status. I made one for Career Expectations. Now Logevity. Using myself as an example, it's nice to know that 15 years of continuous service might count for something.

I hope they can figure this out without alot of fences, but I believe if fences are needed, It would be better to fence UAL guys off your n/b Captain slots for a period rather than fence CAL guys off of our w/b (except for a short fence for w/b Captain to protect guys near retirement). After all, I don't believe i should be an instant Captain, nor do I believe my Career Expectations regarding my last 5-10 years should change DRAMATICALLY by piling on a ton of young guppy Captains ahead of me who were hired in the last 10-12 years.

JMHO,
Sled

Originally Posted by Zoomie (Post 1247668)

1) I understand how it kinda seemed like a merger with the new code share, but if this argument were true then we were already "virtually" merged with DL/NWA at the time being in Skyteam. This is the nature of code sharing, but this was the first time a code share partner as large as CAL had ever changed alliances.

Originally Posted by Zoomie (Post 1247668)

2) I've never heard that argument about USAir. I question the validity of that rumor since back in 2008, UAL approached CAL first, then USAir after being turned down. In 2010, it was just the opposite.

Originally Posted by Zoomie (Post 1247668)

For pay purposes, I support any and all furloughs receiving pay for longevity purposes, the SLI is a whole different ball of wax.

Originally Posted by Zoomie (Post 1247668)

Maybe its just my perception, but it seems to me from posts on this board that there are number of members at UAL on APC that think they will go from furlough to a nice lineholder on their choice of base/equipment or from reserve FO to Captain based on them throwing out any mention of a DOH-type SLI for the bottom part of the seniority integration.

Originally Posted by jsled (Post 1247662)

Some valid points for sure, esp. regarding Category and Status. Junior UAL pilots, esp. furloughees, generally do not fair well in that argument.....but....like Airhoss and Motch were discussing above, there has to be a balance. Career Expectations: A UAL fellow like myself hired in 1997, was going to retire 158/8700 or in the top 1.8%. Then, after shinkage, but before the merger it was about 158/7000 or the top 2.2%. Well, 2.2% of the combined airline of 12000 is 264. IOW, using a relative seniority argument for Career Expectations, my retirement number should slide about 106 numbers.

This is one thing that makes the SLI so hard here. Balancing the larger number of narrowbody Captain slots at CAL with the larger number of widebody Captain and F/O slots at UAL. I don't think I should take your n/b Captain seat tomorrow, but at the same time, I don't want you to take my w/b Captain seat in 5 or 10 years. Sure, some CAL guys will say "fence it then...I don't want it" but that is total BS. I don't retire until 2033. We gonna fence it till then???? NOPE. And just cause some SAY they don't want it, what happens in 10 years?? Talk is cheap.

Now Longevity...that's the third thing. Have not seen this word in an ALPA merger policy since I have been in ALPA (1991). That is a can of worms. You made a solid argument regarding Category and Status. I made one for Career Expectations. Now Longevity. Using myself as an example, it's nice to know that 15 years of continuous service might count for something.

I hope they can figure this out without alot of fences, but I believe if fences are needed, It would be better to fence UAL guys off your n/b Captain slots for a period rather than fence CAL guys off of our w/b (except for a short fence for w/b Captain to protect guys near retirement). After all, I don't believe i should be an instant Captain, nor do I believe my Career Expectations regarding my last 5-10 years should change DRAMATICALLY by piling on a ton of young guppy Captains ahead of me who were hired in the last 10-12 years.

JMHO,
Sled

Originally Posted by CleCapt (Post 1247671)

Sled,

You have some very good points here. BUT, you seemed to have concentrated too much on the retirement side of the equation. You fail to take into account the age at which someone was hired. Your comments assume that all the pilots at CAL are younger than you. IF a 2005 737 Captain was hired at age 45, then under your scenario, he should be ahead of you solely because he will retire sooner. Looking at where you are on the list when you retire might help you justify your argument, it can also be used against you. As far as I know, RELATIVE SENIORITY has been seen as where you are on the list now (or current snapshots) not where you might have been if you got all the planes you had on order, didn't shrink any more or pieced out to other airlines ( ie Pan Am and TWA )

Originally Posted by Zoomie (Post 1247668)

Maybe its just my perception, but it seems to me from posts on this board that there are number of members at UAL on APC that think they will go from furlough to a nice lineholder on their choice of base/equipment or from reserve FO to Captain based on them throwing out any mention of a DOH-type SLI for the bottom part of the seniority integration. That's exactly how a DOH scenario would turn out. Perhaps most of these guys are throwing out flame-bait, or perhaps they are really delusional to believe this is going to happen. Are union reps at UAL feeding this or is this self-induced wishful thinking.

I'm still curious if anyone has ever seen an SLI where a furloughed pilot was placed in front of an active pilot on an SLI. From what I understand, that would be unprecedented and has never happened at any airline, but I'm still waiting for one example, let alone a big enough example to hold up to an arbitrator.

Originally Posted by jsled (Post 1247662)

Some valid points for sure, esp. regarding Category and Status. Junior UAL pilots, esp. furloughees, generally do not fair well in that argument.....but....like Airhoss and Motch were discussing above, there has to be a balance. Career Expectations: A UAL fellow like myself hired in 1997, was going to retire 158/8700 or in the top 1.8%. Then, after shinkage, but before the merger it was about 158/7000 or the top 2.2%. Well, 2.2% of the combined airline of 12000 is 264. IOW, using a relative seniority argument for Career Expectations, my retirement number should slide about 106 numbers.

This is one thing that makes the SLI so hard here. Balancing the larger number of narrowbody Captain slots at CAL with the larger number of widebody Captain and F/O slots at UAL. I don't think I should take your n/b Captain seat tomorrow, but at the same time, I don't want you to take my w/b Captain seat in 5 or 10 years. Sure, some CAL guys will say "fence it then...I don't want it" but that is total BS. I don't retire until 2033. We gonna fence it till then???? NOPE. And just cause some SAY they don't want it, what happens in 10 years?? Talk is cheap.

Now Longevity...that's the third thing. Have not seen this word in an ALPA merger policy since I have been in ALPA (1991). That is a can of worms. You made a solid argument regarding Category and Status. I made one for Career Expectations. Now Logevity. Using myself as an example, it's nice to know that 15 years of continuous service might count for something.

I hope they can figure this out without alot of fences, but I believe if fences are needed, It would be better to fence UAL guys off your n/b Captain slots for a period rather than fence CAL guys off of our w/b (except for a short fence for w/b Captain to protect guys near retirement). After all, I don't believe i should be an instant Captain, nor do I believe my Career Expectations regarding my last 5-10 years should change DRAMATICALLY by piling on a ton of young guppy Captains ahead of me who were hired in the last 10-12 years.

JMHO,
Sled

Originally Posted by Zoomie (Post 1247597)

While I feel sorry for those at UAL who have been totally screwed by their parent company, what's done is done. This post is about some hard love and a reality check.

UAL shrank, and now that former size is just a number on a piece of paper that doesn't mean anything. It grew again when UAL and CAL merged. Actually, CAL shrank too, just not as much as UAL. The game of musical airline chairs is always being played, and the UAL pilot group lost a lot. This same game took a lot of other casualties with TWA, PAN AM, Eastern, and the list goes on...

UAL didn't care who it merged with back in 2010. It tried CAL back in 2008 and got rejected. In 2010, it decided to move on and court USAir. At that point CAL had a CEO who was put in place to make a deal and didn't like the result of a combined UAL/USAir to compete with. The rest is history.

The truth of the matter should be that if you are a CA when the merger happened, you should be a CA after the SLI. If you were a junior FO sitting reserve before the SLI, you should be the same after the SLI.

Some of the UAL guys (and we know UAL hired a lot between 98 and 2001) think they will be on par with CAL pilots hired during the same period. So basically, these UAL pilots think they should go from junior FO sitting reserve to sitting in a nice comfortable CA seat, hence the 90% to 65% comment. YGTBFKM.

Get real! Do you really think this is going to happen and this wouldn't be a windfall for UAL pilots? If UAL didn't merge, when a UAL pilot would eventually be recalled, do you think that they would jump straight from furlough to CA seat. Along the same lines, as a stand alone entity, when UAL furloughed, do you think at recall time, those junior FOs that were still on property would go from junior A319 FO to B757/767 CA? That is what a DOH type scenario or anything close to it would do.

CAL has slightly grown and had a ****load of retirements since 9/11. UAL has shrunk, twice. That shrinkage is no fault of anyone but the ineptitude of management at UAL and some strong industry pressure after 9/11.

Do some UAL pilots think an involuntary furlough at UAL that doesn't have a job right now at UAL, but for the past 3-4 years, they could go and apply at FDX, SWA, DL, and work there since they don't have a job should magically be placed above anyone that's currently working and has been working for 5-8 years with no furlough at CAL? How would that not be a windfall?

That brings up another question since the merger policy mentions equipment and status as being part of the equation.

What equipment does a furlough hold? Nothing. Null. Zero. It doesn't exist.

What status does a furlough hold? Unemployed unless they got hired somewhere else. As a matter of fact, some furloughed UAL pilots after 9/11 interviewed and got hired at CAL and are now CAs at L-CAL. Should a furloughed UAL pilot go in front of another furloughed UAL pilot that cut his losses and moved on with his life?

I'm sure we're all going to get screwed on this SLI. Personally, if we hadn't merged, I'd be looking at widebody FO real soon and CA a few years from now. I'm guessing that now I'll most likely have to wait a lot longer than that solely based on this merger. But that sure as heck shouldn't mean that I go from 90% to 95% and then stay at 95% for the next 5 years while UAL pilots decide whether or not to leave their job at USAir or China Air for the next 10 years.

I know my input means nothing, and our merger committees will duke it out then send it to arbitration. I'm just trying to show a little bit of sunlight to the BS that someone has been feeding some on the L-UAL side.

Originally Posted by Zoomie (Post 1247706)

With regard to career expectations:

I would argue that arguments for what percentage will I retire at most likely won't hold a lot of weight (I'm not an arbitrator though). Here's my reasoning. First of all, for someone at the beginning of a career, its too long term in the future. If you're only 5 yrs from retirement, the argument is much better. How many pilots in the past have been a newhire and projected hiring at X% and when they finally retire, actually retire within +/- 2%. I have no idea, but I'm pretty sure it's not too accurate a gauge. I'm sure the merger committees are gonculating those #s though. It's a nice warm fuzzy to discuss in newhire class, but historically not very accurate, especially considering no one knows if they will ever be furloughed or if there will be growth.

Airlines grow, and airlines shrink. Chances are, in 2033, before you retire, the % of widebody aircraft to narrowbody aircraft won't even be close to it what it is now. What if we lose 30 widebody aircraft and we gain 100 SNB aircraft in that time period? What happens if we gain 30 WB aircraft and lose 100 NB aircraft? It's too ambiguous. The further you have until retirement, the worse the argument "career expectations" are. In my opinion, career expectations are really, where will I be next year, where will I be 5 years from now, and maybe where will I be in 10. Anything longer than that is impossible to determine.

As for longevity:

Take a look at how DL guys decided how longevity worked. If it works the same, which I'm sure there will be variations, guys at DL were basically merged on a relative seniority basis. Where longevity played a part is when you're shuffled in the deck. If you're integrating the list of pilots at 89.9% seniority, and say that's 10 pilots. We want all those pilots to stay within a certain percentage point(in this example 0.1%), but who goes on top. Well, at DL/NWA, that's where longevity played a part. So of the 10 guys at 89.9% seniority, if 6 of them at UAL had 12 yrs longevity, where the 4 at CAL only had around 5 years, well the 6 at UAL would get shuffled in at a higher spot. I have no idea if that's how it will work at UAL, but we're both ALPA carriers like DL/NWA, and that's how it worked over there just a few short years ago.

That seems fair to me (obviously I'm biased) and it went over fairly well at DL/NWA(and has been lauded as the smoothest integration, possibly ever), so I would hope we would see something similar. The problem exists with the 1437 pilots on furlough(neither DL or NWA had furloughs in their integration).

It appears that some UAL guys think that 1437 furloughs should have an equal spot, even though they currently don't hold a position at UAL. This also doesn't take into account that there are another 300 newhire positions at CAL since the merger and soon to be more come the fall. So, a junior person at CAL has gone up in seniority over the past 2 years, a junior person at UAL has stayed stagnant since the furlough. Will those of us at CAL who have gained seniority over the past few years lose that same seniority in an SLI? I would hope not...