You just stated a couple posts back that it wasn't a "change" it was a "revision"...I think your selective reasoning is getting you all confused.

Nahhhh don't look at at the fact that furloughed guys aren't fired...they're furloughed. They still own a seniority number. They still hold a status of fleet, seet, and base. They even have a retirement date and what can be held at that time.

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.

"IF" all pilots at sUAL froze their age below 65 your theory might fly. Your theory seems to somehow be based on sUAL never needing a replacement pilot for retirees that are known to occur and doubt if any hypothetical scenario will change that fact. Also, you seem to be pretty happy being on the management side of a real good and your hopes for more whipsaw(sUAL shrinkage). If you want to win a few spots that way, no common ground there. But we have plenty of WB Capts that were furloughed at least once and ended up having a pretty good career to compare. Why can't I expect the same career as other sUAL former furloughees now WB Capts? Expectations are not guarantees and that is why "career guarantees" are not part of the process. Also, I think your real concern should be how the arbitrators are going to react to CALMECs (via LOA 25) attempt to manipulate their work.

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.



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.

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.

Ummmmm.......aren't you ASSUMING yourself? ;)

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?!???

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?

If you believe that is plausible, you would have to deny the historical fact the every CAL/UAL pilot ever furloughed was eventually offered recall and a right to finished their career, but who knows, the Mayans may be right.

Well, you may want to review the Pan AM / National arbitrator's decision. This was a major merger with a furlough issue not unlike UAL / CAL. There have been other cases, Canadian / Air Canada, where Canadian pilots had no expectation, they were within a few days of BK and all their pilots faced unemployment through dissolution, but the Arb found fairness in a full ratio-ed seniority list. So Arbs do look at everything, including the future synergies.



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

"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).