All furloughees at dal/nwa from the early 2000's (after 9/11) were given longevity for pay purposes, but that longevity didn't translate onto the "seniority list", - as was said, there were 2007 dal hires that went ahead of 2000 nwa hires on the SL. Toward the top of the list, there were also dal 1986 hires who went ahead of 1979 nwa hires...those were the extremes, though, for the majority in the middle of the list, the avg loss of DOH seniority for the nwa guys was about 2-3 years. (there was a group of about 150 dal 1991 hires who went behind nwa 1995 hires, -the only place on the list where it was reversed) This might be a key point though....even though there was a significant difference in DOH seniority....-almost everyone remained within 1-2% of their original seniority at their respective airline.

Everyone kept their original DOH for longevity/pay purposes, and for non-rev priority purposes.

 

Spin it however you want to believe it but fact is 300+ pilots on DAL's ISSL were and currently remain in an inactive status. Nothing technical. Just the facts!!

Maybe "inactive" means something different in the northeast than it does in the southeast???

 

I don't think it's "spin". They were all offered their jobs back, but elected to bypass. I thought the whole point was...they were placed on the ISSL as if they were "active", even though technically they weren't...they were for ISSL construction purposes only.

That goes back to the original point or question that SoCal guy asked: whether dal had furloughees who hadn't been offered recall at the time of the merger...If there had been, there is a possibility that they would have been treated differently on the ISSL. I think that was the point, wasn't it?

 

What part are you not understanding??

As Shiz pointed out above.....All furloughs, on both sides of the DAL deal WERE offered the OPPORTUNITY to come back (something referred to as "re-call-ed"). For those who remained "inactive" as you put it, it was the "former furlough's" prerogative to do so, but they HAD been "recalled". As it was stated above by Shiz, in the DAL formula, ALL pilots were treated as "active" during the SLI process b/c all had been "offered" recalled.....Something not germane to our case.

In UCAL's case (assuming things stand as they presently sit and a SLI is constructed) NOT all furloughs have been "recalled" to their respective lists. If an SLI clock were to start in the coming months if/when a JCBA is signed, there would STILL be pilots who were/are NOT recalled to their respective lists, a'la L-UA furloughs......thus NOT "Apples/Apples" in comparing the DAL/NWA's deal.

You can use the word "inactive" all you want, but the FACT OF THE MATTER in the DAL/NWA SLI, all pilots HAD been afforded the opportunity to come back, something that L-UAL has not offered to it's furloughs. There is a difference in being "INACTIVE" by choice (DAL/NWA furloughs), versus being "INACTIVE" by NOT having a choice (L-UA furloughs).

For the record, and outside of popular belief......Several pilots "active" on BOTH sides are in full support that furloughs are to receive "longevity" for "pay purposes only" just as DAL did.

 

^^^^That's exactly what I was speaking about/asking^^^^

 

So let's get to the point. Are y'all implying that since LUAL has not recalled their furloughed pilots to the LUAL side of the house that these 1435 ALPA members are to be, in your opinion, stapled to the bottom of the combined seniority list?

 

CAL also had furloughs at the first merger snapshot.

 

Some of you guys need to read a little more in the actual ALPA merger procedures and policy.

Since there are relatively senior, voluntary LUAL furloughees, "stapleing" all 1435/37 to the bottom of a combined seniority list is unfeasible since the relative seniority of each carrier's respective list must be maintained. "Stapleing" a relatively senior, voluntary furloughee to the bottom of a combined list likely would violate that requirement.

However, there is no requirement that they all be considered the same. That will be argued. They just can't be reordered.

 

As it's been coined before.....Opinions are like the "orifice" that your presently sitting on, everyone has one.

No one's "opinion" means a hill of beans other than the respective Merger Committee's & the Tri-Panel Arbitration. Barring those 3 entities, it's ALL conjecture. With that being said, I don't think there will be a staple-job (in the fashion that YOU present above) on a future SLI.

The "point" of the post was to dispel the "mis-information" that ^^^someone^^^ posted earlier regarding the DAL/NWA SLI considerations.

 

No. I personally don't expect them to be stapled. But, considering they're currently on involuntary furlough(no recall offered) I would expect that they will have people hired at CAL after they were hired at UAL to end up senior to them. IOW, they're 99 hire date will likely not put them senior to 2004(05) hires at CAL.

But that's just my opinion. And that's worth nothing to most people.