Originally Posted by SoCalGuy (Post 1261276)

SC~
Please define "Active Service" vs "Longevity".

Originally Posted by Sonny Crockett (Post 1261274)

Nobody at L-UAL is screaming for DOH.....however I fully expect the furloughed guys hired in 99' to NOT go behind the 2005-2007 CAL crowd....good luck thinking they will our active service is over 8 years without LONGEVITY.


I have had 2007 CAL hires think they will "beat" out all the UAL furloughed bubba's......aint gonna happen!

Originally Posted by liquid (Post 1261280)

I already asked... he won't answer. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by horrido27 (Post 1261175)

Career expectations can and should come into play.. but there in lies a MAJOR problem. Some mergers bring similar carriers together, some don't.
The argument will be simple- where do we think our two airlines were headed and what does that mean for us.
Our two sides will make their presentations and then it will be up to the Arbitrator.
My side will argue that-
1) We had 149 pilots on the street at the time of the merger, a much lower percentage then you had.
2) That we had firm orders on the books for 737's and 787's. And none of them (at the time) were listed as replacement aircraft.
3) That we had the strongest Scope in the Industry.
4) That our "financials" were strong.

Obviously, your side will argue otherwise.
But in the end, it will go to arbitration.

We will never know what would have happened to our two carriers had we stay independent. But I will always believe that my career expectations were good at a stand alone Continental.
Again, all 12000+ pilots at both carriers will have very different opinions based on their current status, their age and their airline.

We'll have this discussion again in Spring/Summer 2013!

Motch

Originally Posted by untied (Post 1261284)

Career expectations are only part of what will decide the SLI. They must follow the new ALPA merger policy that includes longevity and "fairness".

I'm supposed to retire #160 at UAL. My whole career was slowed down by BK and the age 65 rule change. The only bright spot is when the retirements start and I finally get to enjoy some seniority. Now there are CAL pilots that think I should be placed behind a 2007 hire. The last time a large group of pilots lost that much seniority, USAir left the union. ALPA can't afford to have that happen again, and that's why they changed the merger policy to include longevity.

So....all you guys talking about "relative seniority" better take a look at the official merger policy. IT'S NOT IN THERE!! :D

Originally Posted by Sonny Crockett (Post 1261274)

I have had 2007 CAL hires think they will "beat" out all the UAL furloughed bubba's......aint gonna happen!

Originally Posted by SoCalGuy (Post 1261282)

Where's "Tubs" when you need him???;)

(Be here all weekend, don't forget to tip your dancers)

Originally Posted by Sonny Crockett (Post 1261289)

He is standing in for Ben (LEC IAH)

Originally Posted by SEDPA (Post 1261287)

And how exactly do you know that this "aint gonna happen"?

Another potential twist of faith or "bed making" ... let's say the arbitrators won't go to DOH, but instead use some sort of credit for "active time" when considering "longevity" ... what will they do with the "CAL" time that some L-UAL guys have ... remember, per the TPA, for L-UAL pilots, the CAL job will not have an impact on the SLI. And remember, the one absolute thing that we do know about the SLI is that you will always remain relative w/regards to your pre-merger senority list.

Originally Posted by SoCalGuy (Post 1261291)

I'd like to see you personally say that to Ben "face to face".
My first $round$ is on Ben.

Just say'in