thor2j

It is always so funny to read the favorite 2 defenses.
First longevity. Yes it is a part in the merger policy, but to what degree who knows. Past precedents will set the stage, guaranteed. Those items listed, including longevity, are only what must be looked at, not limiting to. Many, many more factors.

Secondly, as to furloughs, yes they may retire a wide body captain, or may retiree in the top 100, but if they don't have a job for 10 years who gives a $hit!!! So in ten years they're 99% if there was no merger. At the time of merger they had NO SEAT? As you always bring up, that is part of the merger policy!

SpecialTracking

Just trying to understand your argument. What future growth assumptions and retirement numbers are you looking for L-UAL?

Regarding those who have been furloughed for as you say "10 years," I most definitely give a $hit!!! about them. They have been thrown under the bus enough. By your caring posts, I'm sure you would tell a 2172/1437 that you were more than willing to step on the bus' accelerator pedal. Disgusted.

80ktsClamp

SLI arbitration universally has recognized that pilots still on furlough do not bring active pilot slots to an integration, thus will be placed behind active pilots as that is the only thing that is fair to the active pilots.

Prepare yourself for the reality of that logic, as that is what is coming.

FWIW, credit will be given to more retirements on the UAL side as well.

Coto Pilot

Has there ever been an ALPA merger where ALPA was legally required to represent the interests of furloughed pilots because they were active dues paying members on the opposite seniority list?

CALFO

Thanks for posting this. I believe this sums it up pretty well. I do not recall L-UAL having any recall letter out at the time of the merger. In fact, since the merger, the L-CAL not only recalled all their furloughs, but hired an addition 500 pilots.

Everyone in the industry, including myself, felt bad for our brothers at UAL. You all got screwed. The bottom line is that it wasn't the CAL pilots that screwed you.

Personally, I don't want to see either side lose ground in an SLI. There are simply too many variables for any of us to argue a true course for integration. At the end of the day, my hope is that the arbitrators look at all factors and take an analytical approach, much like that of an actuary, to determine where everyone stands and come up with a "fair" solution. I don't want a CAL or UAL's pilots definition of "Fair" but an independent, analytical one. No matter where I end up on the list, if it can be shown to be that I did not lose ground, then I am fine with the decision.

LAX Pilot

^^^ Overall that's a very good analysis and lets all hope that's what happens ^^^

SpecialTracking

I understand and appreciate what you are saying. When you say "lose ground," are you speaking in the present, future, or both?

LAX Pilot

I think that's the question. That's the hardest part to fit. Its going to be an aggregate solution for each pilot group, and not an individual solution.

sleeves

Why do people post and or comment on these post. The SLIis in the hands of the merger committees. They are now on there own. Neither MEC is in control of them, and thus line pilots have zero input or influence. These posts just cause each other stress and serve to drive a wedge between our groups. The SLI will be the SLI. The contract is over, it was what we had control over. I am done here gonna go play catch with my son. See ya all on the line.

SpecialTracking

One of the most genuine posts I have ever read. Hope you throw better than the father in the Volkswagon commercial.