Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > United
Attention Furloughed UAL Pilots >

Attention Furloughed UAL Pilots

Notices

Attention Furloughed UAL Pilots

Old 11-29-2012, 08:14 AM
  #1  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Posts: 53
Default Attention Furloughed UAL Pilots

Starting assumptions:

If you are CAL pilot, you are working at CAL under your CAL longevity, as adjusted under their current CBA

If you are a furloughed UAL pilot, then you have whatever longevity you have accrued under the current UAL CBA and a certain amount of furlough time for which you hope to receive credit (Furlough Bank)

If you are a furloughed UAL pilot currently working at CAL, then you are working under your current CAL longevity, as adjusted by the TP&A, and you have longevity accrued at UAL and a certain amount of furlough time for which you hope to receive credit (Furlough Bank)

LOA 25 makes no distinction between a furloughed UAL pilot and a furloughed CAL pilot but since CAL currently has no furloughed pilots then this LOA is currently being applied only to furloughed UAL pilots (either working at CAL or not).

Section 3-B-3 of the proposed TA applies ONLY to future furloughed pilots. It has no bearing on current or past furloughed pilots whether they are UAL or CAL.

LOA 25

LOA 25 has two important triggering events and two important "if then" statements. The two triggering events are Date of Signing and the Integrated Seniority List. Paraphrasing from LOA 25, if you are now, or ever were on furlough, and you have time accrued in your Furlough Bank then you will receive FULL CREDIT FOR ALL TIME SPENT ON FURLOUGH subject to the limitation that you will not have longevity greater than a pilot hired on 5/6/08. Practically speaking for almost every furloughed UAL pilot working at CAL, your longevity for pay purposes will be 5 years (soon to be 6) and your Furlough Bank will debited to reflect the longevity credit you have been given. Almost every UAL pilot will still have a Furlough Bank balance at this point.

The second triggering event is the ISL. If you have more time in your Furlough Bank, then at acceptance of the ISL, you will receive FULL CREDIT FOR ALL REMAINING TIME SPENT ON FURLOUGH, subject only to the limit that you will not leap frog ahead of a CAL pilot that has been place above you on the Integrated Seniority List. EXCEPT THAT, for the purposes of longevity, any CAL pilot above you that was penalized longevity for leaves of absence, THOSE REDUCTIONS SHALL BE REMOVED, effectively allowing you to take advantage of EVEN MORE furlough credit than would otherwise be due. THIS ALLOWS YOU THE GREATEST CREDIT FOR FURLOUGH TIME entitled to you subject only to the ISL process.

So why would a CAL pilot be placed above a long time furloughed UAL pilot on the integrated seniority list. Only a voluntary agreement by the UAL MEC (not in the best interest of any UAL pilot) or an adverse ruling by the arbitrator can place you below the seniority of a CAL pilot with less longevity. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS, SUBJECT ONLY TO AN ADVERSE RULING BY AN ARBITRATOR, YOU WILL RECEIVE FULL CREDIT FOR ALL TIME SPENT ON FURLOUGH!

No party can guarantee the arbitrator’s decision; therefore the TA endeavored to give furloughed pilots the greatest protection possible given an uncertain future.

Effect on ISL

If you’ve read any arbitrator rulings on merged seniority lists, and in particular the NW-Delta ruling, then you know that longevity AND current status (fleet, seat, etc.) were taken into consideration along with career expectations and other factors. The fact of the matter is that right now if you are currently furloughed then you have NO LEGAL STANDING what-so-ever. Is this a raw deal? YES IT IS! But no amount of wishing and willing will move the mountain of legal precedence to the contrary.

LOA 25 however makes no distinction between a furlough UAL pilot that is currently working at CAL and a furloughed UAL pilot that remains on furlough. At DOS, they both receive, FULL CREDIT FOR ALL TIME SPENT ON FURLOUGH subject to the 5/8/08 limitation. In other words they improve their standing is the ISL process!

If this TA fails to ratify, then while it is renegotiated, the status of the UAL furloughed pilots will be further eroded as CAL continues to grow and expand, hiring new pilots and upgrading existing pilots. Pilots whose legal standing in will be greater than your own despite your years of service and time spent on furlough. After the expiration in March 2013 of the TP&A clause governing relative block hours between the two subsidiaries, there will be one less obstacle in the way. If furloughed pilots end up stapled to the bottom of the list it will be themselves that have done the stapling.

Be informed. Vote your interests.
DirectLawOnly is offline  
Old 11-29-2012, 09:17 AM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Coto Pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 645
Default

This issue isn't about receiving credit for time spent on furlough, we are not even getting credit for our years of active service at United, much less United + CAL, and certainly not our years on furlough. This is even after the merger is complete, we will not get credit for the years we have flown for United, if a pilot hired after us at CAL ends up senior to us with less longevity than our years of active service at United which is quite possible.
Coto Pilot is offline  
Old 11-29-2012, 09:37 AM
  #3  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Posts: 53
Default

Originally Posted by Coto Pilot View Post
This issue isn't about receiving credit for time spent on furlough, we are not even getting credit for our years of active service at United, much less United + CAL, and certainly not our years on furlough. This is even after the merger is complete, we will not get credit for the years we have flown for United, if a pilot hired after us at CAL ends up senior to us with less longevity than our years of active service at United which is quite possible.
"Even after the merger is complete......" You can't possible make this assertion unless you have in your possession the ISL in its final form. An example: if you have 15 years of longevity in all its forms (active UAL, furlough, etc.) and the next senior CAL pilot on the ISL has 16 years, you will get credit for your full 15. That is plainly clear from LOA 25.

As for a CAL pilot with less longevity being placed above you on the ISL, that is largely beyond the control of the parties to the JCBA. How can the CAL MEC, UAL MEC, or UCH management bind the arbitrator to a decision that is favorable to you? The answer is only a consensual agreement between the two MEC's on an ISL that gives you full credit for all longevity and places you above any CAL pilot with less longevity. In essence, straight date of hire. Believe me, I'm not opposed to that, but barring that you are at the mercy of the arbitrator's ruling.

Explain to me how you think a NO vote helps you achieve your goal of getting maximum credit for your accrued service and furlough time.
DirectLawOnly is offline  
Old 11-29-2012, 10:41 AM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Coto Pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 645
Default

That is exactly the point, without the outcome of the SLI known, we have to assume the worst, which is to be stapled. If the TA is voted down, ALPA can fix it me removing LOA 25 Paragraph 4. I guarantee you that ALPA national is wishing this language was not in the agreement.
Coto Pilot is offline  
Old 11-29-2012, 11:05 AM
  #5  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Posts: 53
Default

Originally Posted by Coto Pilot View Post
That is exactly the point, without the outcome of the SLI known, we have to assume the worst, which is to be stapled. If the TA is voted down, ALPA can fix it me removing LOA 25 Paragraph 4. I guarantee you that ALPA national is wishing this language was not in the agreement.
You understand that removing paragraph 4 without negotiating additional language actually hurts you, right? With paragraph 4 you can potentially get full credit. Without it, you get nothing. Only language specifically giving you full credit for furlough will give you what you want. Under the TP&A both MEC's must have a Unified Bargaining Position (defined term) in order to approach the company in Section 6 negotiations. (or any other matter) What is the chance that the CAL MEC agrees to a provision that categorically puts UAL pilots in front of CAL pilots? How do you think LOA 25 came into existence?
DirectLawOnly is offline  
Old 11-29-2012, 12:50 PM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2012
Position: CAP A320
Posts: 299
Default

Originally Posted by DirectLawOnly View Post
You understand that removing paragraph 4 without negotiating additional language actually hurts you, right? With paragraph 4 you can potentially get full credit. Without it, you get nothing. Only language specifically giving you full credit for furlough will give you what you want. Under the TP&A both MEC's must have a Unified Bargaining Position (defined term) in order to approach the company in Section 6 negotiations. (or any other matter) What is the chance that the CAL MEC agrees to a provision that categorically puts UAL pilots in front of CAL pilots? How do you think LOA 25 came into existence?
Well Mr. Law, you must be a CAL guy. First of all, the issue here, is that the double furloughees were the ONLY group carved out that did not get full longevity. All future furloughees got it for both sides, all CAL pilots including a small group from 19 years ago. How can you justify that?

The issue here is a lack of representation or misrepresentation for that particular group of double furloughees which opens up a very nice lawsuit. Please tell me how it wouldn't because their our law firms jumping at the chance of doing so, in fact, one is going through the movement of doing just that. The same lawsuit that represented TWA pilots that WON in their lawsuit against ALPA.

If you are going to give full longevity all the way back to 19 years, then you need to justify not giving one particular group that benefit, unless it's for the purpose of setting up that group to be stapled. I agree a "NO" vote might not change the LOA getting yanked, but a lawsuit will make a big point to the arbitrator and ALPA groups. That is the "NO" vote, but just in case, a "NO" vote might send this POS TA back for further review where the LOA might get removed. As you said, you have no idea what an arbitrator will rule in the ISL case, well same goes for if the TA gets voted down: you won't know what the outcome of further TA negotiations will produce.

So keep you technically incorrect legalese to yourself instead pushing your self-serving interests without merit.
fanaticalflyer is offline  
Old 11-29-2012, 01:50 PM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
Default

Coto

"This is even after the merger is complete, we will not get credit for the years we have flown for United, if a pilot hired after us at CAL ends up senior to us with less longevity than our years of active service at United which is quite possible. "

Part of this makes sense, yes it is not just possible but probably a sCAL pilot will end up senior to a sUAL pilot who has more longevity. Additionally there will be sUAL pilots junior to sCAL pilot on the finale SL that will get PAID MORE because of their longevity.

Longevity in the ISL means pay scales, 1 - 12 years. Seniority is what drives bidding. The ISL process works out SENIORITY and CANNOT take away a pilot's LONGEVITY.

Can we all get on the same page here.
Regularguy is offline  
Old 11-29-2012, 03:33 PM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
untied's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 521
Default

Originally Posted by DirectLawOnly View Post
If this TA fails to ratify, then while it is renegotiated, the status of the UAL furloughed pilots will be further eroded as CAL continues to grow and expand, hiring new pilots and upgrading existing pilots..
Not if the snapshot has already been taken. Past mergers have taken the status of guys at the merger announcement date (or something close to it) and base the SLI on that. That's the way it should be to prevent whip-sawing of pilot groups.
untied is offline  
Old 11-29-2012, 04:27 PM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
contrail67's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: 737
Posts: 590
Default

Originally Posted by fanaticalflyer View Post
Well Mr. Law, you must be a CAL guy. First of all, the issue here, is that the double furloughees were the ONLY group carved out that did not get full longevity. All future furloughees got it for both sides, all CAL pilots including a small group from 19 years ago. How can you justify that?

The issue here is a lack of representation or misrepresentation for that particular group of double furloughees which opens up a very nice lawsuit. Please tell me how it wouldn't because their our law firms jumping at the chance of doing so, in fact, one is going through the movement of doing just that. The same lawsuit that represented TWA pilots that WON in their lawsuit against ALPA.

If you are going to give full longevity all the way back to 19 years, then you need to justify not giving one particular group that benefit, unless it's for the purpose of setting up that group to be stapled. I agree a "NO" vote might not change the LOA getting yanked, but a lawsuit will make a big point to the arbitrator and ALPA groups. That is the "NO" vote, but just in case, a "NO" vote might send this POS TA back for further review where the LOA might get removed. As you said, you have no idea what an arbitrator will rule in the ISL case, well same goes for if the TA gets voted down: you won't know what the outcome of further TA negotiations will produce.

So keep you technically incorrect legalese to yourself instead pushing your self-serving interests without merit.

How many double furloughees actually took the CAL offer? As I understand it, they can't vote unless they are on property, correct? Can there be a lawsuit from a group that most are not here anyway...I would be afraid that a lawyer may twist that to say, there was no guarentee they were going to return as they had the offer to return on the CAL side presented to them before the TA, so how important of an issue is it? I could see that being a mess and I know how things can get twisted to look like the ones that did not come back were not coming back anyway...

Last edited by contrail67; 11-29-2012 at 04:28 PM. Reason: none
contrail67 is offline  
Old 11-29-2012, 05:52 PM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Coto Pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 645
Default

I believe that the number is in the hundreds. As long as one dues paying member is effected, their is a basis for a lawsuit, and even the plots that aren't paying dues will benefit from a successful outcome. People need to stop calling this furlough longevity credit. We are not even getting credit for the active years we have worked at United. This is an unprecedented low in the history of ALPA's treatment of furloughed pilots. I was at eight year pay when I was furloughed. I will go to 5 year pay upon passage of the TA, and I may go to something higher upon completion of the SLI, but might get nothing more if we are screwed during the SLI.
Coto Pilot is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Airhoss
United
210
09-04-2012 06:48 AM
nw320driver
Foreign
35
10-15-2010 07:41 PM
skippy
GoJet
4
05-11-2009 08:55 PM
John Pennekamp
Major
28
02-13-2007 01:08 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices