Notices

SLI work begins

Old 12-21-2012, 02:21 PM
  #81  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 218
Default

Originally Posted by LAX Pilot View Post
Except that's not what ALPA merger policy says.....

And the 99% active UAL pilot has 13 years of Longevity, so he certainly won't end up 99% on the overall list.
Are you saying a furloughed pilot at, say 103%, could end up at 95%, displacing a current CAL pilot at 95% to 100+%????

(I notice that you are conveniently ignoring the "windfall" portion of the merger policy). Merger policies and arguments aside though, how is that even fair much less ETHICAL!?!

Most UAL pilots voted yes on this contract under the guise of forging a new unity. To believe that a furloughed pilot has the above entitlement destroys unity!
Mitch Rapp05 is offline  
Old 12-21-2012, 02:25 PM
  #82  
Peace Love Understanding
 
LAX Pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
Default

Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05 View Post
Are you saying a furloughed pilot at, say 103%, could end up at 95%, displacing a current CAL pilot at 95% to 100+%????

(I notice that you are conveniently ignoring the "windfall" portion of the merger policy). Merger policies and arguments aside though, how is that even fair much less ETHICAL!?!

Most UAL pilots voted yes on this contract under the guise of forging a new unity. To believe that a furloughed pilot has the above entitlement destroys unity!
What I said was why should a pilot with 13 years of active employment become junior to one with 2 or 3?

Also, there is no 103% seniority. You are either a pilot on the UAL Pilots Seniority list, or you aren't. But the list is the list.
LAX Pilot is offline  
Old 12-21-2012, 02:27 PM
  #83  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 218
Default

Originally Posted by LAX Pilot View Post
Except that's not what ALPA merger policy says.....

And the 99% active UAL pilot has 13 years of Longevity, so he certainly won't end up 99% on the overall list.
After re-reading your post it appears that we are talking about two different things. I am directly addressing the question originally raised in this thread, "Where should the furloughs expect to be placed". Your post above mentions active pilots, of which I have not mentioned or discussed (aside from referencing compared to furloughs).

The placement of active pilots is a completely different discussion, of which I'll leave for the experts! My point has been that furloughs have no entitlement to be placed above an active pilot.

Again, good luck and I hope that we are all satisfied with the end result.
Mitch Rapp05 is offline  
Old 12-21-2012, 05:04 PM
  #84  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 419
Default

Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05 View Post
Are you saying a furloughed pilot at, say 103%, could end up at 95%, displacing a current CAL pilot at 95% to 100+%????

(I notice that you are conveniently ignoring the "windfall" portion of the merger policy). Merger policies and arguments aside though, how is that even fair much less ETHICAL!?!

Most UAL pilots voted yes on this contract under the guise of forging a new unity. To believe that a furloughed pilot has the above entitlement destroys unity!
No, most UAL pilots voted to end the huge windfall you've enjoyed for at least the last 3 years. You're whipsaw perch is over and hopefully we can unite but if not...oh we'll. How ethical was it that one party did 90% of the redundancy cuts to make this mutual agreement happen? It's a fact that sUAL couldn't have filled their WB seats wo CAL's NB feed into sUAL hubs, but don't expect you to admit that either. You benefited from our cuts period and the rank and file UAL pilot is sick of it. That is what drove the votes. OBTW, who buys the "superior CAL management" baloney anymore...don't here that too much anymore except when I here the excuse of how bad UAL was is the cause of our current problems 2 years later....kinda like "it's Bush's fault".
ChrisJT6 is offline  
Old 12-21-2012, 05:50 PM
  #85  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: B-777 left
Posts: 1,415
Default

Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05 View Post
Are you saying a furloughed pilot at, say 103%, could end up at 95%, displacing a current CAL pilot at 95% to 100+%????

(I notice that you are conveniently ignoring the "windfall" portion of the merger policy). Merger policies and arguments aside though, how is that even fair much less ETHICAL!?!

Most UAL pilots voted yes on this contract under the guise of forging a new unity. To believe that a furloughed pilot has the above entitlement destroys unity!
Did I miss something? Do we know how the 2 groups actually votd on this pos contract?
syd111 is offline  
Old 12-21-2012, 07:22 PM
  #86  
Gets Weekends Off
 
cadetdrivr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Default

Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05 View Post
(I notice that you are conveniently ignoring the "windfall" portion of the merger policy).
Um...you might want to look at the current policy. The "windfall" prohibition is not longer mentioned.

Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05 View Post
Most UAL pilots voted yes on this contract under the guise of forging a new unity. To believe that a furloughed pilot has the above entitlement destroys unity!
And to suggest that a pilot who was furloughed by management to enable an easy DOT/DOJ approval process should be blindly stapled so others can reap the benefit of a merger also destroys so-called unity. "Unity" is not a one-way street.
cadetdrivr is offline  
Old 12-21-2012, 07:47 PM
  #87  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 218
Default

Originally Posted by cadetdrivr View Post
Um...you might want to look at the current policy. The "windfall" prohibition is not longer mentioned.


And to suggest that a pilot who was furloughed by management to enable an easy DOT/DOJ approval process should be blindly stapled so others can reap the benefit of a merger also destroys so-called unity. "Unity" is not a one-way street.
Scope relaxation had nothing to do with the furloughs?
Mitch Rapp05 is offline  
Old 12-21-2012, 08:04 PM
  #88  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 218
Default

Originally Posted by ChrisJT6 View Post
No, most UAL pilots voted to end the huge windfall you've enjoyed for at least the last 3 years. You're whipsaw perch is over and hopefully we can unite but if not...oh we'll. How ethical was it that one party did 90% of the redundancy cuts to make this mutual agreement happen? It's a fact that sUAL couldn't have filled their WB seats wo CAL's NB feed into sUAL hubs, but don't expect you to admit that either. You benefited from our cuts period and the rank and file UAL pilot is sick of it. That is what drove the votes. OBTW, who buys the "superior CAL management" baloney anymore...don't here that too much anymore except when I here the excuse of how bad UAL was is the cause of our current problems 2 years later....kinda like "it's Bush's fault".
All,
I've enjoyed the banter, but unfortunately emotions are now overcoming logic and reason. I will bow out of this conversation.

Finally, to all my UAL brethren, I hope that all of our fears about the SLI prove unfounded. Moreover, I hope to put this phase behind us as quickly as we can and move on as a unified group. Most UAL pilots that I have met have been professional, kind, and a pleasure to deal with.
Mitch Rapp05 is offline  
Old 12-21-2012, 08:46 PM
  #89  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
APC225's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Default

Originally Posted by ChrisJT6 View Post
...who buys the "superior CAL management" baloney anymore...don't here that too much anymore...
Wall Street may have pushed that line but CAL pilots tried to warn UAL pilots that our management was no better than yours, and quite possibly much worse. And while we may have many disagreements I think most UAL pilots are starting to see this too.
APC225 is offline  
Old 12-21-2012, 09:03 PM
  #90  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
APC225's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Default Latest Q&A

CAL MEC Merger Committee Frequently Asked Questions

As of 12/20/12

1. Why did the CAL Merger Committee use the January 2010 Seniority List for the employment verification and seniority list certification process?

The Merger Committee necessarily utilized a fixed moment in time to analyze everyone's data so that we had an “apples to apples” comparison with the UAL employment data. The monthly staffing data found in CCS is variable and changes frequently so we opted to utilize the most recently published Flight Operations Seniority List, which at the time was the January 2010 list.

The two Merger Committees spent a great deal of time in May and June of 2010 verifying and certifying their respective seniority lists. We then updated the January list by removing pilots no longer employed at Continental Airlines as of May 17, 2010. That was the date of the Protocol Agreement, which detailed the procedures for integrating pilot seniority lists in connection with the UAL-CAL merger. This basic information was exchanged with the United Merger Committee's information on June 29, 2010. Before the final integrated list is prepared (whether through negotiations, mediation, or arbitration), the two Merger Committees will perform an update to confirm the most recent employment data available for all of the pilots then appearing on either seniority list.

2. What changes were made to ALPA 's Merger Policy in 2009?

The rewrite of ALPA Merger Policy in 2009 changed very little in the procedures used to integrate the pilot seniority lists of merging airlines or in the substance of the standards for measuring the fairness of integrated lists. Most of the document's changes were essentially “clean up” in nature.

Historically, MEC's were always encouraged to enter into agreements with each other on what type of process they would use to get them to an integration of their respective seniority lists. The new language emphasizes that option and encourages both groups to try to resolve things in a consensual fashion on their own without relying solely on an arbitration proceeding. The goal behind this concept is that it may be a better outcome for both pilot groups if you can work out your differences with the other side consensually. If both parties can't work out their respective differences, they will have far less control of the outcome in arbitration and of course no matter what happens in arbitration, the result is final and binding. The main “change” to the procedure for merging lists is that the arbitration panel will now consist of 3 independent arbitrators, while the previous configuration of a single professional labor relations arbitrator with two pilot neutrals remains available as an alternative.

With regard to the substantive standards for integrating seniority lists fairly, most people tend to focus on Part 3.C.4, paragraphs d. through f.:

d. No integrated list shall be constructed which would change the order of the flight deck crew members on their own respective seniority lists.

e. The merger representatives shall carefully weigh all the equities inherent in their merger situation. In joint session, the merger representatives should attempt to match equities to various methods of integration until a fair and equitable integrated seniority list is reached. Factors to be considered in constructing a fair and equitable integrated seniority list, in no particular order and with no particular weight, shall include but not be limited to the following:

• Career expectations. • Longevity. • Status and category.

f. No integrated seniority list shall be subject to MEC or membership ratification.

Pilots often assign their own meaning to this section and elevate the importance of certain portions of it in order to maximize their own individual situation. In reality, it simply identifies some (but not all) of the considerations universal to all pilot seniority integrations.

Please keep two critical points in mind. First, the concept of “career expectations” is purposely broad. It is intended to cover all ALPA pilots from the new hire at the regional airline to the legacy pilot coming up on his retirement date.

Secondly, please do not confuse “longevity” with “date of hire. ” Longevity is based on how long you have actually worked for your airline, NOT MERELY the time that has passed since the date you were hired. For example, if you were hired in July 2000 (ten years ago) and were furloughed for 4 years, you would have 6 years of longevity (or time actually “in the seat” flying airplanes). Again, this term is just one consideration mentioned in this section. ALPA Merger Policy assigns no greater weight or importance to this consideration than to the many others that come to mind.

For those of you who would like to delve deeper into this subject, ALPA published an informative article in the October 2009 issue of Air Line Pilot Magazine regarding the rewrite of ALPA Merger Policy. It can be found on the CAL MEC website on the Merger Committee's page.

3. Can we expect the CAL Merger Committee to publish educational materials such as graphs and charts that would compare the CAL and UAL seniority lists in various ways?

As a rule, information of any kind produced by the CAL Merger Committee will not be made available to the membership or the public during seniority list negotiations. As benign as it seems, publishing this information would be tantamount to negotiating in public. We know this is not the answer that most pilots want to hear, but it's the best answer. Our goal is to produce the very best possible outcome for all Continental pilots and publishing data that we produce could jeopardize that goal. That said, if we end up in arbitration, the hearings will be open to our pilots and we welcome everyone's attendance.

4. Can I be bumped out of my 737 Captain seat by a more senior pilot when the seniority lists are merged?

The Transition and Process Agreement requires that the ISL contains a “no bump, no flush” provision. This provision ensures that the implementation of the merged list will not be the occasion for senior pilots to bump or flush those pilots junior to them.

The “no bump” aspect of the provision acts like one of our current system bids in that you cannot be displaced out of your currently staffed position as a result of the implementation of the integrated list. For example, the most senior pilot on the integrated list (who is not currently based in CLE) decides he wants to fly Captain on a B737 out of CLE after the lists are merged. He will only be awarded this position if a vacancy exists and cannot displace the most junior CLE 737 captain out of his position simply because he is more senior. He must wait for a vacancy to be created in order to bid this position.

The “no flush” aspect of the provision prevents a “flush bid” from occurring. If a “flush bid” were allowed to occur, everyone would bid what their seniority permits, which could in turn cause massive system-wide displacements and training as a result of the merger.

5. Am I going to lose any seniority or be harmed in any way as a result of my being on LTD during the Seniority List Integration process?

In short, no, you won't lose any seniority nor will you be harmed as a result of being on LTD during the SLI process. For starters, there will not be any re-ordering of Continental pilots on the Continental seniority list. In other words, you will always be junior to the Continental pilot who is 1 number senior to you and you will always be senior to the Continental pilot 1 number junior to you.

6. Which pilots will be included in the SLI process?

All pilots who are on the seniority lists of CAL and UAL, as of May 3, 2010, the date the merger was announced, will be included in the Seniority List Integration process. This includes pilots at both airlines who are on Military Leave, other leaves of absence (Medical, LTD, Personal, COLA, FMLA), and furloughed pilots. However, throughout the process, the lists will be updated to account for various additions and deletions of pilots to the list such as for a pilot who is reinstated or for a pilot who retires, etc.

A pilot who is on furlough has the same right to a place on the integrated seniority list as any other pilot, whether recalled or still on furlough. A pilot's position (including a furloughed pilot) on the Integrated Seniority List is subject to negotiation and, if necessary, mediation and arbitration. There is a significant amount of precedent for integrating the employed pilots from one airline only with employed pilots of the other. However, if the case ends up in arbitration, the members of the arbitration panel have the discretion to integrate the lists in any way they determine is fair and equitable. Please note, though, that Section 5-B(i)b of the Transition and Process Agreement provides: “Pilots on furlough status at the time the Integrated Seniority List is implemented may not bump or displace pilots in active status at that time. ”

7. Has a seniority list “snapshot” been taken yet and, if so, what is the date?

There is no single “snapshot” date used during the Seniority List Integration process; rather, there are several that will be used, with each having its own individual purpose. For example, the Protocol Agreement dated May 17, 2010 between the CAL MEC and UAL MEC (available on the Merger Committee web page) specified the date for both Merger Committees to initially certify the specifics of each pilot group's employment data, including the names of all pilots on each seniority list, positions held, and leaves of absence.

There will be additional “snapshots, ” or updates, taken during the Seniority List Integration process to account for additions to or deletions from the respective lists, especially if the integration process continues to arbitration. When we worked out the Protocol Agreement with the UAL Merger Committee, we recognized that a considerable amount of time may be needed to negotiate a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement, so we included language that requires both Merger Committees to update the lists at a time closer to mediation and/or arbitration.

8. Why did the CAL MEC agree to offer new hire positions to furloughed United pilots?

The CAL MEC, Negotiating Committee, and Merger Committee discussed this program at length prior to agreeing to it. Simply put, offering furloughed United pilots any new hire Continental positions is the right thing to do for members of our combined pilot group. There is no detriment to any Continental pilot by offering United furloughees these positions.

9. How are the furloughed United pilots who accept new hire employment at Continental in accordance with Section 7-B of the Transition & Process Agreement categorized in any future “snapshots” of the two seniority lists?

The furloughed United pilots who accept employment opportunities at Continental retain their places on the United seniority list and are still considered furloughed from United Airlines. They will be treated as such when updates are made to the United seniority list in accordance with paragraph 2.B of the Protocol Agreement. Furthermore, they are considered Continental new hire pilots with two exceptions: 1) they will not have to serve a probation period; and, 2) they have been grandfathered to the United hourly pay rate they were receiving at the time of their furlough, until their Continental pay rate and Continental pay longevity catches up; however, beginning on the effective date of the JCBA, they are to be paid in accordance with LOA 25 of the JCBA. As of the end of the year 2012, we have 417 new hires who are furloughed UAL pilots and another 27 pilots hired off-the-street.

10. Can Paragraph 7-B, Job Opportunities, be used against the Continental pilots during a potential seniority list arbitration proceeding?

No, on the contrary, the last sentence of paragraph 2.E of the Protocol Agreement directly addresses this issue:

… any provisions in any transition agreement regarding the hiring of pilots or the allocation of flying or equipment during such period of separate operations shall not constitute evidence on the question of the appropriate allocation of flying following the expiration of any transition agreement or the manner in which UAL or CAL would have operated separately absent a Merger or the job entitlements or equities that might arguably underlie any construction of an ISL or for any other like or related purpose.

11. Do furloughed United pilots who become new hires at Continental receive length of service credit for time served at Continental for seniority purposes and how will this affect their equities in the Seniority List Integration process?

No, a furloughed United pilot flying for Continental will not receive length of service credit for the purposes of the Integrated Seniority List as a result of his employment at Continental. The only length of service equities brought to the SLI process will be time served while actively employed as a pilot at United Airlines, excluding furlough time. This is confirmed in a letter dated July 20, 2010, signed by CAL MEC Chairman Jay Pierce, UAL MEC Chairman Wendy Morse and both Merger Committee Chairmen. This letter specifies that in any seniority integration mediation or arbitration, “all representatives of and witnesses for the Continental and United pilots will refrain from mentioning the subject of service credit for pay or other purposes with respect to furloughed pilots of one carrier hired by the other carrier pursuant to Section 7-B of the Transition Agreement. ”

12. Will a United pilot be advantaged in the SLI process as a result of LOA 25 in the JCBA?

LOA 25 will not advantage any United pilot in the SLI process. LOA 25 deals with pay longevity and does not increase any United pilot's service credit for length of service calculations.

13. Now that we have a ratified JCBA, what is the timeline of the SLI process going forward?

The SLI process, as you may recall, is governed by the Protocol Agreement executed by the UAL MEC and the CAL MEC on May 17, 2010, shortly after the announcement of the merger. The Protocol Agreement required that we begin SLI negotiations with the United Merger Committee upon the announcement of a merger, with the goal of a consensual agreement on an ISL between both Merger Committees. This agreement further provides that we will initiate the mediation/arbitration phases (selection of mediator and arbitrators and the actual proceedings, etc.) only when the two MECs have approved a tentative agreement (TA) for the JCBA, which occurred on November 12, 2012, and after pilot ratification of the JCBA as well.

The two Merger Committees have selected the three members of the Arbitration Panel, which consists of Dana E. Eischen, Roger P . Kaplan and Dennis R. Nolan. We will post their biographies soon on the Merger Committee page of the CAL-ALPA website. We will be choosing the Mediator shortly and will post his/her bio as well.

There are several dates/timelines that the protocol agreement lays out for the SLI process. The remaining deadlines are based on the date of the JCBA TA, which, as noted above, was on 11/12/12.

TA + 100 days 2/20/13 Mediator Joins Negotiations
TA + 140 days 4/1/13 Arbitration Becomes Mandatory

The two Merger Committees are currently in the negotiations phase. In fact, we are tentatively scheduled to meet Jan. 8-9, 2013. If we don't reach agreement on an ISL with the United Merger Committee by Feb. 20, 2013, we will initiate formal mediation proceedings, with the jointly selected mediator joining the two Merger Committees in the SLI negotiations. If we don't reach agreement while utilizing the mediation process by April 1, 2013, arbitration becomes mandatory. That said, however, nothing in the protocol agreement prohibits both Merger Committees from initiating mediation and, if necessary, arbitration, prior to those dates.

14. Assuming that we end up in arbitration, will I be able to attend the actual arbitration proceedings?

Yes, while virtually all of what we do in preparation for the negotiations, mediation and arbitration is confidential, the actual arbitration proceedings will be held in open session and all pilots will be invited to attend.

Last edited by APC225; 12-21-2012 at 09:13 PM.
APC225 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
2StgTurbine
Regional
37
12-22-2012 05:42 PM
deltabound
Foreign
18
03-28-2010 02:49 PM
bryced1
Flight Schools and Training
26
10-14-2009 04:14 AM
Busboy
Cargo
110
09-18-2007 05:41 PM
ToiletDuck
Hangar Talk
10
02-27-2007 10:35 AM

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