|
Bond/McCaskill does not apply when both groups are represented by the same union.
(1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at the covered air carrier, that collective bargaining agent's internal policies regarding integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supercede the requirements of this section; Sled |
Originally Posted by David Watts
(Post 1365580)
First there are no 2002 hires at CAL. But anyway, is putting a UAL 92 hire ahead of a CAL 87 hire fair or equitable?
I guess it depends on where you are sitting to what "fair" is. I know the CAL 87 hires and earlier would love to go along with your DOH or longevity based list. Wide body captains for all those CAL guys. Remember "fair" is in the eye of the beholder. Was it "fair" that my cousin was going to be in the top 10 at Pan Am for a long portion of his career after being hired in the early 70's and now he is no where near that at his new airline. The list is long with these examples. Don't get so wrapped up around this seniority list. Not one of us will have a say in it. Each of us will have to decide when the list comes out if we want to be miserable about it for the rest of our lives or move on and enjoy our lives. Both at home and at work. I'm sure more of us will be disappointed with the list than are happy about it. I'm sure I'll be disappointed with the list, because I am a pilot and we love to complain. But I'm not going to let it destroy me. The sooner we all can do that the sooner we can get on with our lives and maybe even say hi to each other in the crew rooms :) |
|
It's funny to see some of the CAL guys with such a sense of superiority. I remember looking at Major Airlines back in the 1990's. CAL was the place you "ended up" if you couldn't get on with ANYONE else.
Double BK, run by scabs, treated horribly.... I can't tell you how many guys and gals I've met at UAL who gave up YEARS of CAL seniority to come over to United in the 80's and 90's. EVEN TO B SCALE! The only factor that makes CAL look better today is the fact that they parked less airplanes. When we first approached CAL for a merger, a 1997 hire had Captain seniority. Tilton parked 100 737's to make the deal happen, and now it's supposed to destroy us in SLI. It may hurt us, but longevity being taken into account (in the ALPA merger policy) for the first time should help balance things out a little. The snapshot was taken over 2 years ago. Remember when they sent out the list to verify your fleet and seat? That was it. |
Originally Posted by untied
(Post 1368287)
It's funny to see some of the CAL guys with such a sense of superiority. I remember looking at Major Airlines back in the 1990's. CAL was the place you "ended up" if you couldn't get on with ANYONE else.
Double BK, run by scabs, treated horribly.... I can't tell you how many guys and gals I've met at UAL who gave up YEARS of CAL seniority to come over to United in the 80's and 90's. EVEN TO B SCALE! The only factor that makes CAL look better today is the fact that they parked less airplanes. When we first approached CAL for a merger, a 1997 hire had Captain seniority. Tilton parked 100 737's to make the deal happen, and now it's supposed to destroy us in SLI. It may hurt us, but longevity being taken into account (in the ALPA merger policy) for the first time should help balance things out a little. The snapshot was taken over 2 years ago. Remember when they sent out the list to verify your fleet and seat? That was it. and thanks for "CAL is scum" dig, classy. 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: (1) Career expectations. (2) Longevity. (3) Status and category. https://crewroom.alpa.org/ual/Deskto...cumentID=45274 There's the WHOLE merger policy document. ^^^^^ |
Originally Posted by untied
(Post 1368287)
It's funny to see some of the CAL guys with such a sense of superiority. I remember looking at Major Airlines back in the 1990's. CAL was the place you "ended up" if you couldn't get on with ANYONE else.
Double BK, run by scabs, treated horribly.... I can't tell you how many guys and gals I've met at UAL who gave up YEARS of CAL seniority to come over to United in the 80's and 90's. EVEN TO B SCALE! The only factor that makes CAL look better today is the fact that they parked less airplanes. When we first approached CAL for a merger, a 1997 hire had Captain seniority. Tilton parked 100 737's to make the deal happen, and now it's supposed to destroy us in SLI. It may hurt us, but longevity being taken into account (in the ALPA merger policy) for the first time should help balance things out a little. The snapshot was taken over 2 years ago. Remember when they sent out the list to verify your fleet and seat? That was it. |
I don't see how either side can really boast about the history of their respective company since deregulation and derive any sense of superiority.
|
Originally Posted by liquid
(Post 1368307)
I find it funny that the only tenet you guys hold on to is longevity.
and thanks for "CAL is scum" dig, classy. 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: (1) Career expectations. (2) Longevity. (3) Status and category. ^ No "Relative seniority" in the merger policy?? Career expectations can help UAL with all the wide body aircraft. Longevity favors UAL for the most part, with some senior CAL folks helped out too. Status and category favors CAL on most levels. |
Originally Posted by NFLUALNFL
(Post 1368363)
I don't see how either side really boast about the history of their respective company since deregulation and derive any sense of superiority.
The fact is that neither company has much to brag about. |
Originally Posted by untied
(Post 1368374)
Status and category favors CAL on most levels.
Status and category means "how many seats does each side bring in what aircraft" (i.e. 747 Capts and FOs, 727 CAP, FO, SO, etc) It doesn't matter who is sitting in what seats or when they were hired. United bring more aircraft of a higher status and category without a doubt. More widebodies, less narrowbodies. Just because CAL has a bunch of guys who were hired in the 90s who didn't take Captain bids when they had the chance, and more junior pilots took those slots, doesn't help for SLI. The terrible work rules on the CAL side, plus the high number of commuters caused that, not any career expectation, etc. Don't expect UAL pilots to pay for that in seniority integration. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:01 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands