|
Originally Posted by cadetdrivr
(Post 1315631)
And what did the CAL pilot neutral say? :rolleyes:
The CAL pilot neutral was of the opinion that the furloughed pilots should at least be credited with active time served prior to being furloughed. He was overruled by the arbitrator and the UAL pilot neutral, both of whom felt that the furloughed pilots did not deserve any longevity credit. Ironic, isn't it? |
Except that policy has been changed to add Longevity as a factor. So I don't think that its going to be ignored.
The question is does longevity mean when you got initially hired, how long you were active, or a mix of the two? And yes, a furloughed pilot does have a career expectation, all other things being equal. So we will see how they put all that together. |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1315793)
Both Delta & NWA had pilots who ended up senior to pilots whom were hired at their respective airline first. IOW, they ended up junior to guys hired after them.
|
Originally Posted by A320
(Post 1315832)
Are you suggesting that as a LUAL pilot I may find myself junior to another LUAL pilot who was hired after me? I am positive that will not happen.
|
Originally Posted by A320
(Post 1315832)
Are you suggesting that as a LUAL pilot I may find myself junior to another LUAL pilot who was hired after me? I am positive that will not happen.
|
Originally Posted by Speedtape
(Post 1315768)
SO we should see who was hired at Pan Am, Eastern, Braniff, TWA,
and get their DOH, and merge them first !! If you're out of a job when the merger happens, you should go to the bottom, and be happy you weren't out of a job forever. As for longevity, 10+ years sitting at the bottom, holding NB FO does not equal 5 years of steady progression and ability to hold NB CA. Failing to take that into account results in a big windfall for the 1st guy,(which is what he's been hoping for all along) But thats just my opinion, I could be wrong:p |
There will be no one size fits all to the list. They don't have to apply DOH, Relative %, shoe size, number of Super Bowl wins for preferred NFL team, etc to the entire list. They can use all of these metrics for whatever portion of the list is the most appropriate. The only things I can and will say for sure about how the list turns out is I won't be leapfrogging anyone already senior to me at CAL and I don't expect to be worse off in terms of lineholder/reserve than what I am now.
|
Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05
(Post 1315635)
Are you saying it is reasonable to expect someone not employed by United to displace or jump ahead of a current United employee? How can someone not employed with a company expect to have any expectations with that company, much less better expectations than a person currently employed with that company?
Again, as rough as it may sound, furloughs are FORMER employees of United and have as much career expectations as Joe Pilot at Express whose Dad is a chief pilot. Furloughee's have a career expectation in order of seniority, a pilot that is simply unemployed does not and that is the difference between those working and those temporarily unemployed through no fault of their own. These folks have rights to a UAL job unavailable to anyone else. Consider a world where the lists were not put together, the furloughees, in time, would return, fly a career and retire at a certain seniority, based on their age, notwithstanding other types of attrition. This is quantifiable, without too much effort a career earnings could be calculated, even for someone that is furloughed today. The arb will look at all of this and then decide, but to say furlough status predetermines a particular outcome would be ill advised. |
Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05
(Post 1315635)
Again, as rough as it may sound, furloughs are FORMER employees of United and have as much career expectations as Joe Pilot at Express whose Dad is a chief pilot.
|
So would a person who took a voluntary furlough have no career expectations since they left on their own?, maybe for hopes of something better. Should the forced furlough guys go ahead of them? Just a question..... Max
|
Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05
(Post 1315635)
Again, as rough as it may sound, furloughs are FORMER employees of United and have as much career expectations as Joe Pilot at Express whose Dad is a chief pilot.
|
Originally Posted by Captain Bligh
(Post 1316161)
Mitch, with all due respect it seems you have much to learn about the culture CAL management brings to the new airline. It has been our experience that if your dad was chief pilot or you were willing to leave your ALPA position for a job in the training department, your career expectations were quite high...
------ |
Originally Posted by Maxepr1
(Post 1316147)
So would a person who took a voluntary furlough have no career expectations since they left on their own?, maybe for hopes of something better. Should the forced furlough guys go ahead of them? Just a question..... Max
|
Originally Posted by untied
(Post 1315629)
Yeah.....then ALPA merger policy was Changed!
Don't forget that ALPA lost AAA/AWA due to the crappy old SLI policy. The policy has been changed...
Originally Posted by untied
(Post 1315629)
...and the arbitrator MUST adhere to it.
Originally Posted by untied
(Post 1315629)
Past SLI arguments are useless.
|
Originally Posted by DALMD88FO
(Post 1315782)
As you can see I'm a Delta guy and don't have a dog in this hunt. What I will tell you from experience is that once it goes to arbitration all bets are off. Here are some short shots from the Delta/NWA merger:
1. It didn't matter that the majority of Delta aircraft paid more than NWA they just broke it down as widebody and narrowbody. 2. The did a stovepipe (which means they ordered the seniority list as to what you could actually hold so it didn't matter what seat you were actually in) 3. They merged the two lists (within a percent or 2 depending on where you sat on the list) so that ended up with about your same relative seniority. 4. They didn't care if you had a bunch of dinosaur aircraft that were approaching the end of their cycle life or if your seniority list had a huge number of guys retire early. So basically they just looked at what type of seats you brought to the dance and merged them via a ratio by your size. We didn't have any furloughee's, however if we had they wouldn't have had a seat to merge into the list and as such would have been on the bottom. The arbitrators didn't care about your date of hire as we had new hires (07) merged with 01 hires that had been furloughed. Just remember you are now along for the ride since you signed off on the joint contract. |
Originally Posted by 13n144e
(Post 1316203)
The "crappy old" ALPA merger policy wasn't "changed" - the verbage was just revised to be a little more concise. That's very nearly a quote from someone who was actually on board for the revision of said verbage.
The arbitrators can pretty much do whatever the hell they want. They have extensive latitude and are not limited or confined to the items specified in the merger policy. Kinda like the Pirate's Code - "it's more just a general guideline." Hardly. These individuals are all professional arbitrators. They're not going to blow their professional cache by going completely off the ranch and bucking all past precedent. Disabuse yourself of that notion as soon as possible. They'll probably just look at the most junior captain in EWR and base the whole SLI on THAT!:eek: Longevity being added is a game changer. It won't drive the whole process, but it will make a big difference as compared to what happened at USair. |
Originally Posted by untied
(Post 1316210)
Yeah, you're probably right.
They'll probably just look at the most junior captain in EWR and base the whole SLI on THAT!:eek: |
Originally Posted by Baron50
(Post 1316120)
To answer your question, yes it is reasonable. The UAL furloughees have a vesting. They were identified by UAL management to eventually be the senior pilots at UAL through the normal process of age attrition. Absent a merger, no one on earth would be entitled to sit in the UAL pilot seats 20 or 30 years from now. So, if you thought for a moment this entitlement is without value, consider how many pilots would trade their current position for a slot on the UAL furlough list.
Furloughee's have a career expectation in order of seniority, a pilot that is simply unemployed does not and that is the difference between those working and those temporarily unemployed through no fault of their own. These folks have rights to a UAL job unavailable to anyone else. Consider a world where the lists were not put together, the furloughees, in time, would return, fly a career and retire at a certain seniority, based on their age, notwithstanding other types of attrition. This is quantifiable, without too much effort a career earnings could be calculated, even for someone that is furloughed today. The arb will look at all of this and then decide, but to say furlough status predetermines a particular outcome would be ill advised. "Absent" a merger, a return to the UAL list is NO given. Many ASSUMPTIONS must have occurred before ONE l-UAL pilot would have been recalled to a "non-merged" UAL. To now assume that said ASSUMPTIONS would have become "definite" sufficient enough to place a currently unemployed pilot in front of an employed pilot is unreasonable. |
Originally Posted by HSLD
(Post 1316137)
Don't let the fact that UAL furloughees have a seniority number on the current list, are defined as a status category by union policy, and have 10 year recall rights get in your way. Just like Joe pilot at Express, right :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by Captain Bligh
(Post 1316161)
Mitch, with all due respect it seems you have much to learn about the culture CAL management brings to the new airline. It has been our experience that if your dad was chief pilot or you were willing to leave your ALPA position for a job in the training department, your career expectations were quite high...
|
Originally Posted by 13n144e
(Post 1316232)
I didn't say anything remotely like that. My point is, however, if you actually bother to look at the change in verbage there's absolutely nothing that would preclude something like the NWA/DAL award or even make it less likely. Nothing. However you want to interpret it, there is nothing in the merger policy that would lessen the value of a status and category/ratio methodolgy.
|
Originally Posted by HSLD
(Post 1316137)
Don't let the fact that UAL furloughees have a seniority number on the current list, are defined as a status category by union policy, and have 10 year recall rights get in your way. Just like Joe pilot at Express, right :rolleyes:
Don't look at any of that. Look at the SLI though your self-serving, self absorbed aviator sunglasses and see what kind of benefit you can glean off your fellow union members back. |
Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05
(Post 1316272)
A furloughed pilot has no job at United, just a promise that IF and WHEN United begins to hire again they will get first choice to return (in seniority order). Potential or hypothetical makes not a recall. For example, just because United has "x" amount of pilots slated for retirement doesn't automatically mean that the furloughed pilot will eventually be needed to replace him (see Age 65 or mgt. could simply not replace the retired pilot and shrink the airline <-- a very real possibility).
"Absent" a merger, a return to the UAL list is NO given. Many ASSUMPTIONS must have occurred before ONE l-UAL pilot would have been recalled to a "non-merged" UAL. To now assume that said ASSUMPTIONS would have become "definite" sufficient enough to place a currently unemployed pilot in front of an employed pilot is unreasonable. |
I don't buy the argument that furloughees are former employees, but they are not active pilots. Just as they were not allowed to vote on the contract, they have no place on the SLI except on the bottom of the list below active pilots.
Originally Posted by Baron50
(Post 1316120)
Consider a world where the lists were not put together, the furloughees, in time, would return, fly a career and retire at a certain seniority, based on their age, notwithstanding other types of attrition. This is quantifiable, without too much effort a career earnings could be calculated, even for someone that is furloughed today.
For all we know, a furloughee might never have returned to UAL. |
As we have this discussion, all should consider that the only thing that allowed the majority of furloughs was age 65. Absent the change in retirement age, most of the furloughs would have been un-economic for the company given the 18-24mo. break-even point for a furlough. Also absent age 65, all furloughees would have been recalled in a short time frame.
But age 65 did happen, you say, so the point is moot. Not really. It allowed the company to furlough and we have all been essentially frozen in time from a seniority perspective. This is one of the pivotal issues the arbitrators will have to deal with because outwardly this appears to be a four year furlough, but only because of an unusual external factor. Remove that factor and this is probably less than a two year furlough for many and for many, no furlough at all. |
Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05
(Post 1316272)
A furloughed pilot has no job at United, just a promise that IF and WHEN United begins to hire again they will get first choice to return (in seniority order). Potential or hypothetical makes not a recall. For example, just because United has "x" amount of pilots slated for retirement doesn't automatically mean that the furloughed pilot will eventually be needed to replace him (see Age 65 or mgt. could simply not replace the retired pilot and shrink the airline <-- a very real possibility).
"Absent" a merger, a return to the UAL list is NO given. Many ASSUMPTIONS must have occurred before ONE l-UAL pilot would have been recalled to a "non-merged" UAL. To now assume that said ASSUMPTIONS would have become "definite" sufficient enough to place a currently unemployed pilot in front of an employed pilot is unreasonable. Ummmmm.......aren't you ASSUMING yourself? ;) |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1316392)
Ummmmm.......aren't you ASSUMING yourself? ;)
|
Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05
(Post 1316397)
No! I'm merely stating the obvious! Anyone that's been in this business should know by now that nothing is assured until your butt is in the seat! How could stating "recall is not a given" be assuming anything?!???
|
Originally Posted by LCAL dude
(Post 1316332)
Your argument assumes a date of recall based on eveything being frozen, and is like a Detriot auto worker saying "I would have retired from my job making $XXX,000/year if they hadn't outsourced it to Mexico." Even without the UniCal merger the recall date for furloughees was TBD, therefore their career earnings could NOT be calculated. Many variables come into play such as parking of the Busses or DinoSevenFours/Fives, continued economic slowdown, USAir merger, etc.
For all we know, a furloughee might never have returned to UAL.
Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05
(Post 1316272)
A furloughed pilot has no job at United, just a promise that IF and WHEN United begins to hire again they will get first choice to return (in seniority order). Potential or hypothetical makes not a recall. For example, just because United has "x" amount of pilots slated for retirement doesn't automatically mean that the furloughed pilot will eventually be needed to replace him (see Age 65 or mgt. could simply not replace the retired pilot and shrink the airline <-- a very real possibility).
"Absent" a merger, a return to the UAL list is NO given. Many ASSUMPTIONS must have occurred before ONE l-UAL pilot would have been recalled to a "non-merged" UAL. To now assume that said ASSUMPTIONS would have become "definite" sufficient enough to place a currently unemployed pilot in front of an employed pilot is unreasonable.
Originally Posted by 13n144e
(Post 1316203)
The arbitrators can pretty much do whatever the hell they want. They have extensive latitude and are not limited or confined to the items specified in the merger policy. Kinda like the Pirate's Code - "it's more just a general guideline."
These individuals are all professional arbitrators. They're not going to blow their professional cache by going completely off the ranch and bucking all past precedent. Disabuse yourself of that notion as soon as possible. Pay close attention to this quote, what he is saying is that once the issue is turned over to a national arbitration board arbitrator, they are only governed by one principle: "It has to be fair." They are not constrained by any policy of ALPA's unless they somehow feel morally obligated. He is also saying that these Arbs want to continue to work in their trade, so, a really bad decision would probably mean they would never be invited to do another. A career ending scenario. This is why arbitrated decisions generally try to split the baby. Although old Arbs can be dangerous. Baron50 |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1316400)
You stated "absent a merger" recall isn't guaranteed. So would that not be assuming that the merger is what will drive recalls? That UAL would not recall without merging?
|
Originally Posted by ChrisJT6
(Post 1316292)
But we have plenty of WB Capts that were furloughed at least once and ended up having a pretty good career to compare.
So they clearly had a career expectation and our furloughees will not be stapled, especially since they ALL have longevity which HAS to be considered. |
Originally Posted by LCAL dude
(Post 1316332)
For all we know, a furloughee might never have returned to UAL.
Some will hold WB Capt, some not, but that will be looked at along with their LONGEVITY because thats part of merger policy. |
From Fri 12/21 CAL MEC Blastmail
...The Merger Committee has been working for some time preparing to ensure that the Seniority List Integration process provides a fair and equitable result for our pilots. With the completion of the TA in November, they now have started on a time line that will lead to an integrated seniority list in a timely fashion. This time line was established by protocols agreed to by the two MECs back in May 2010. A big step was taken this week by reaching agreement on the arbitrators who will, absent agreement by the parties, hear the case and decide the result. The three-person arbitration panel will consist of Dana Eischen, Roger Kaplan and Dennis Nolan. All are well respected, prominent arbitrators. |
Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05
(Post 1316467)
"Absent" was referring to the post above my post. Merger or no merger a furloughed pilot is not an employee of United. It doesn't matter why they lost their job, the only FACT that's assured is that they did lose their jobs. My point is an UNEMPLOYED (w/United) pilot cannot reasonably expect to displace an employed pilot based on what they "think" would have or should have happened. I "would" have been a Captain by now but "x,y, and z" happened. We deal in facts and reality. Reality IS furloughed pilots are NOT employed (with United).
And if that pilot gets his 7 years of longevity restored (maybe not all 13 or whatever he would have had) then all the pilots who were previously senior to him will still be. So its not like there is a huge group of pilots who aren't flying, many of them are flying, and they are also being paid at their previous pay, so that is going to get looked at as well. Also the reason that pilot might be senior to the 3 year pilot is because of union merger POLICY. Its ACTUALLY WRITTEN! Its says "longevity" is a consideration. So they certainly HAVE TO make an effort to include it. Also merger policy doesn't care if you are an employee. Its about merging pilot lists. Throughout the merger policy that's what it talks about. So those pilots are on the list, and they are being merged.... I imagine if you were that pilot, you would have a different opinion.... |
A UAL pilot flying on the CAL side will still be considered furloughed for SLI purposes per the TPA; his time spent at CAL will not be added to his previous longevity until after the Order and Award.
|
Originally Posted by LAX Pilot
(Post 1316486)
So what about a guy who is ACTIVELY FLYING on the CAL side and has 7 years LONGEVITY total? Should a 3 year pilot that was never furloughed go ahead of that pilot on the integrated list?
And if that pilot gets his 7 years of longevity restored (maybe not all 13 or whatever he would have had) then all the pilots who were previously senior to him will still be. So its not like there is a huge group of pilots who aren't flying, many of them are flying, and they are also being paid at their previous pay, so that is going to get looked at as well. Also the reason that pilot might be senior to the 3 year pilot is because of union merger POLICY. Its ACTUALLY WRITTEN! Its says "longevity" is a consideration. So they certainly HAVE TO make an effort to include it. Also merger policy doesn't care if you are an employee. Its about merging pilot lists. Throughout the merger policy that's what it talks about. So those pilots are on the list, and they are being merged.... I imagine if you were that pilot, you would have a different opinion.... So, YES a 3 year pilot flying for CAL should certainly go ahead of the pilot stated in your example because he/she is STILL furloughed! AGAIN, expecting a pilot currently NOT employed with UNITED to displace a CURRENTLY employed pilot is not only unreasonable it is a windfall for the furloughed pilot. Though merger policy includes longevity as a CONSIDERATION it is more forcefully against any pilot gaining a windfall. I imagine if you were an FO that was expected to upgrade at 3-5 years (or less), flying for a company that was hiring for both growth and retirements, and financially healthy compared to a dying UAL then you would have a different opinion as well... Though nothing we discuss on this board can affect the actual SLI, we can certainly discuss realistic expectations. I believe that the root cause of years and years of litigation and an angry pilot group is unrealistic expectations. To even suggest that an (in-voluntarily) furloughed UAL pilot should displace one CAL pilot (that was never furloughed) is unrealistic. |
Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05
(Post 1316511)
I imagine if you were an FO that was expected to upgrade at 3-5 years (or less), flying for a company that was hiring for both growth and retirements, and financially healthy compared to a dying UAL
I didn't realize you were a Southwest Pilot..... |
Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05
(Post 1316467)
"Absent" was referring to the post above my post. Merger or no merger a furloughed pilot is not an employee of United. It doesn't matter why they lost their job, the only FACT that's assured is that they did lose their jobs. My point is an UNEMPLOYED (w/United) pilot cannot reasonably expect to displace an employed pilot based on what they "think" would have or should have happened. I "would" have been a Captain by now but "x,y, and z" happened. We deal in facts and reality. Reality IS furloughed pilots are NOT employed (with United).
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1316529)
You'll be around the same % on the combined list as you were on your respective single seniority list.
A pilot on the CAL list that is currently 99% and one on the UAL list currently at 99% should remain around the same percent. Furloughed pilots (of which are at 100.1 +%) expecting to leapfrog pilots currently at 100% or less is unreasonable and quite frankly appalling. Regardless, good luck and hopefully we'll all be satisfied with the result. |
Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05
(Post 1316545)
Taken in context my post was not hypocritical. Regardless, I agree with your above statement. That has been my point all along!
A pilot on the CAL list that is currently 99% and one on the UAL list currently at 99% should remain around the same percent. Furloughed pilots (of which are at 100.1 +%) expecting to leapfrog pilots currently at 100% or less is unreasonable and quite frankly appalling. Regardless, good luck and hopefully we'll all be satisfied with the result. And the 99% active UAL pilot has 13 years of Longevity, so he certainly won't end up 99% on the overall list. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:04 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands