Pure Entertainment. My SLI SWAG.
This is meaningless and pure entertainment so nobody should get bent out of shape if they don't like my thoughts. Make your own guess and we'll have a pool to see who get's closest to guessing their number on the new ISL.
I begin with my summation of the relevant discussion in the US Air/Am West and DAL/NWA award. US Air/Am West
DAL/NWA
then a summary of the actual award: US Air
DAL/NWA
Likely UAL/CAL logic based on history and ALPA policy:
BUT here's the kicker that I think will be different. I think the list will include some of the UAL furloughees, and here's my logic:
SO . . . . the list gets integrated as follows based on a ratio of 111 WB/359 versus 46 WB/335, approximately 400 747 pilots, and about 18 WB pilots per plane. UAL 0 to 400 to 1800 to 6400 (5400 to 6400 are furloughees) CAL 0 to 000 to 0850 to 4800 based on my current number of 4322 I end up at: (4322-1800)/(6400-1800)*(11200-2650)+2650=7352 and I match up with a CAL guy: (4322-1800)/(6400-1800)*(4800-850)+850 = 3022 so I'm a 4/1996 hire and I end up next to a 1/2001 hire and I'm 67% in L-UAL and I end up 66% in the ISL. so I predict my new seniority number will be 7352. The only guys that get "screwed" are the CAL guys hired after the fall of 2006 starting around number 3950 who are merged with the UAL furloughees, and before you say ALPA policy doesn't allow this it only says you can't leap frog someone on your own companies list so in this case UAL furloughees do not leap frog any UAL pilots, and the fact remains for CAL post '06 hires, their W2 stays the same, they don't get bumped, and have essentially the same career expectations as before, but the furloughees get some tiny credit for longevity and working for a predominantly WB company pre-merger. Anyways, this is totally worthless as it has no bearing on anything and is merely an exercise in mental gymnastics that you can hate or love or whatever, but I had fun going thru the numbers. |
I think your methodology would equate to junior Cal pilots relative seniority being reduced beyond reasonable levels. Fairness doesn't stop below some arbitrary percentage. I do think active service time for furloughees (LUAL service) should obviously have some weight. I can't see that placing them above any cal pilot with more active service regardless of hire date.
All pure speculation.. |
Originally Posted by Wrsofked
(Post 1372801)
I think your methodology would equate to junior Cal pilots relative seniority being reduced beyond reasonable levels. Fairness doesn't stop below some arbitrary percentage. I do think active service time for furloughees (LUAL service) should obviously have some weight. I can't see that placing them above any cal pilot with more active service regardless of hire date.
All pure speculation.. This is NOT arguing just saying . . . in my SWAG I line up with an '01 hire meaning my 17 years of "active service" compares to 12 years of "active service". So I lose big by that measure. Not sure that just because it "flip-flops" towards the end of the list that that would make a difference. It all boils down for me to the question of how to give the furloughees credit in this particular merger. Maybe they'll be stapled, but I really don't think so and trying to come up with a creative way to merge them without "harming" the junior CAL pilots seems all but impossible. You're right though . . . All pure speculation :) |
|
Originally Posted by Sunvox
(Post 1372808)
This is NOT arguing just saying . . . in my SWAG I line up with an '01 hire meaning my 17 years of "active service" compares to 12 years of "active service". So I lose big by that measure. Not sure that just because it "flip-flops" towards the end of the list that that would make a difference. It all boils down for me to the question of how to give the furloughees credit in this particular merger. Maybe they'll be stapled, but I really don't think so and trying to come up with a creative way to merge them without "harming" the junior CAL pilots seems all but impossible. You're right though . . .
All pure speculation :) you personally, but anybody) come out a percent more senior than you were, you didn't "lose" anything. Obviously it might happen that way, if so I would consider that a win. |
Originally Posted by Sunvox
(Post 1372758)
This is meaningless and pure entertainment so nobody should get bent out of shape if they don't like my thoughts. Make your own guess and we'll have a pool to see who get's closest to guessing their number on the new ISL.
I begin with my summation of the relevant discussion in the US Air/Am West and DAL/NWA award. US Air/Am West
DAL/NWA
then a summary of the actual award: US Air
DAL/NWA
Likely UAL/CAL logic based on history and ALPA policy:
BUT here's the kicker that I think will be different. I think the list will include some of the UAL furloughees, and here's my logic:
SO . . . . the list gets integrated as follows based on a ratio of 111 WB/359 versus 46 WB/335, approximately 400 747 pilots, and about 18 WB pilots per plane. UAL 0 to 400 to 1800 to 6400 (5400 to 6400 are furloughees) CAL 0 to 000 to 0850 to 4800 based on my current number of 4322 I end up at: (4322-1800)/(6400-1800)*(11200-2650)+2650=7352 and I match up with a CAL guy: (4322-1800)/(6400-1800)*(4800-850)+850 = 3022 so I'm a 4/1996 hire and I end up next to a 1/2001 hire and I'm 67% in L-UAL and I end up 66% in the ISL. so I predict my new seniority number will be 7352. The only guys that get "screwed" are the CAL guys hired after the fall of 2006 starting around number 3950 who are merged with the UAL furloughees, and before you say ALPA policy doesn't allow this it only says you can't leap frog someone on your own companies list so in this case UAL furloughees do not leap frog any UAL pilots, and the fact remains for CAL post '06 hires, their W2 stays the same, they don't get bumped, and have essentially the same career expectations as before, but the furloughees get some tiny credit for longevity and working for a predominantly WB company pre-merger. Anyways, this is totally worthless as it has no bearing on anything and is merely an exercise in mental gymnastics that you can hate or love or whatever, but I had fun going thru the numbers. |
This is ridiculous to the point of embarrassing.
|
Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
(Post 1372857)
This is ridiculous to the point of embarrassing.
What part of the word "entertainment" do you not understand? Are you taking this somehow seriously and are you really wound that tight? If you really find it embarrassing then why did you feel compelled to repy? Sheesh :rolleyes: |
My guess.
debate all you want.. argue all hours till the wee hours of the morning..break it down anyway you want.. each legacy carrier has their good/bad and a this and a that....the bottom line 98% of all active pilots end up within 1% of their current relative sr at the announcement of merger. |
Originally Posted by Sunvox
(Post 1372862)
What part of the word "entertainment" do you not understand?
Are you taking this somehow seriously and are you really wound that tight? If you really find it embarrassing then why did you feel compelled to repy? Sheesh :rolleyes: sheesh:rolleyes: |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:19 PM. |
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