|
Originally Posted by Ottopilot
(Post 1263987)
The 2005 hires upgraded in 2007, not the latest bid. Age 65 put them back a few years, now they are back. Maybe a few more this time than last, but no change.
|
Originally Posted by untied
(Post 1263858)
Here's the problem with a "percentage integration"....
I'm supposed to retire at about #160. My career stagnated in the middle, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel. I'll have 37 years seniority in the end, and that should put me VERY senior flying a widebody. Let's say they put my 1997 seniority with some 2007 guy since we're both on the 767 right now. Now I'm basically stapled and will never crack the top 1,200 on the combined list. Tell me that my career expectations have not been harmed! ALPA saw this, and they changed the merger policy. I don't think I'm "better" than a 14 year CAL guy, but I certainly don't deserve to be stapled to the bottom just as the retirements start and my career finally "gets going". The final result should be something in the middle. A few guys taking Captain seats out of seniority at CAL will not drive the entire process. The fact that about 80% of CAL flying is done on the guppy should help the UAL guys who have a much greater chance of flying bigger equipment. Relative seniority integration cost ALPA TWO major airlines (and all those dues). If it goes that way, ALPA is done on the property. I talked to one CAL guy who is a 2007 hire. He believes that he should be senior to me. It's funny....it would be like he got hired at UAL when he was a teenager (he was 17 in 1997). What a deal! I know similar things happened at USAir....that's why the policy was changed. In the end, it's out of our hands. |
Originally Posted by XCAL
(Post 1264010)
Yeah, and your 767 pays less than our Guppy! Good luck with that thought process that more aisles is better! $ = a QOL measurement as well.
Our 767 guys are at $159 per hour while your guppy guys are at $150 anyways... Maybe your large guppy is considered a "large narrow body" and pays more. Like I said, we are all on the same pay scale going forward and that isn't really considered part of "career expectations". Pay changes with every contract for all airlines. |
Originally Posted by untied
(Post 1264157)
Maybe your large guppy is considered a "large narrow body" and pays more.
And is the "majority" of the B737 Fleet is "LNB". |
Originally Posted by Ottopilot
(Post 1263987)
The 2005 hires upgraded in 2007, not the latest bid. Age 65 put them back a few years, now they are back. Maybe a few more this time than last, but no change.
Sled |
Originally Posted by kc135driver
(Post 1264004)
So NONE of them were holding captain in spring of 2010?
Just devil's advocate using your own thoughts. Not trying to flame as I try to stay out of the whole SLI thing as I am not on the merger committee, I won't be there to argue the case and an arbitration panel will decide it. To me this whole SLI debate is just wasted energy. I honestly don't spend one minute thinking about it, not counting the back-and-forth bickering I read on here. But, in my opinion, the SLI should go by: 1. Tallest to shortest, or 2. MM/DD birthdate, or 3. Last four digits of SS #, or 4. Place of residence starting with original 13 colonies 5. Golf handicap OK, maybe not the last one so much in my case, but any of the others are fine with me. Not saying it would be a windfall or anything. :D |
If a poolie were to take the job here, they are saying the most likely scenario is 737 IAH or EWR. If that new hire were somehow able to get ORD or another legacy UAL base, after the contract is signed (if it is signed), could he get bumped out of base by a returning UAL furloughee?
How long is a new-hire stuck in IAH or EWR? |
Originally Posted by 2ndGenPSA
(Post 1289569)
If a poolie were to take the job here, they are saying the most likely scenario is 737 IAH or EWR. If that new hire were somehow able to get ORD or another legacy UAL base, after the contract is signed (if it is signed), could he get bumped out of base by a returning UAL furloughee?
How long is a new-hire stuck in IAH or EWR? 737 IAH or EWR is correct.......... The answer to your other question will be addressed in the JCBA........actually an LOA on implementaion of the JCBA. In other words...nobody knows yet. |
Originally Posted by Shrek
(Post 1289649)
737 IAH or EWR is correct..........
The answer to your other question will be addressed in the JCBA........actually an LOA on implementaion of the JCBA. In other words...nobody knows yet. |
Originally Posted by thor2j
(Post 1289670)
Not true, it is covered in the TPA. There will be no flush bid. There must be a vacancy to bid into. No displacements unless base is shrinking.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:23 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands