|
Originally Posted by tkhayes90
(Post 1389033)
I think your point is valid. But, non of the L-UAL vol furloughs fell below the 8ball line that I am aware of.
At the time of the merger announcement, all of the CAL voluntary furloughs were recalled. The 147 involuntary furloughs were just starting to receive their recall letters. |
Originally Posted by tkhayes90
(Post 1389033)
I think your point is valid. But, non of the L-UAL vol furloughs fell below the 8ball line that I am aware of.
Thanks. |
Originally Posted by SoCalGuy
(Post 1389027)
Question to Motch, and the topic he brought forward on VOL-Furloughs......
Let's say that there were VOL-Furloughs who opted to take the status, and opted out VOLUNTARILY. While he/she was out on VOL-Furlough, there happened to be subsequent round(s) of furloughs. During the subsequent furloughs, the VOL-Furlough's seniority percentage "happens" to NOW fall below the "FURLOUGH 8-BALL LINE" while out on VOL-Furlough. In the above case (albeit rare), those who opted out on a VOL status, now have their "seniority spot" within the furlough band as a bi-product of subsequent "pink slips" that were issued after their leave. If there are cases as such, it's not rocket science as to where the VOL-Furlough's current seniority would fall on the Legacy's Master Seniority List......In the Furlough Band......Wouldn't they become INvoluntarily furloughed for a portion of their leave?? I completely understand that no one Pilot (on their respective Legacy list) can be moved down/up relative to their fellow/pre-merged Pilots......BUT when stating that "all" VOL-Furloughs are exempt, and will return to the seniority without consideration/examination as to where they line up relative to the "Furlough Band" following subsequent furlough(s) after their leave, I find that assumption a pretty broad stroke of the brush. I'm sure this will be just another "cog" to be battled in the presences of the 3 Arbitrators in the coming weeks. Interesting times. But, (and I believe TKH mentioned it..) if someone took a Vol Fur and then subsequently, they would have been InVol Fur, that would have to be their new status. I believe we had the same issues here back in 08 when we had the COLA and Pilot Share program to reduce/mitigate our (LCAL) furloughs. If someone took a COLA but was still below the Furlough cutoff line, their COLA was basically null and void. Same with the Pilot Share program. I guess what we still need to know is- Who is the most Senior Vol Fur guy (or gal) [What was their Hire Date, their AC and Position, and Relative Seniority AT THE TIME of Vol Fur] Who is the last pilot on a Vol Furlough... [With same info required...] This is why any talk of SLI is so complicated and above what any of us think here.. it's for Big Brains, Lawyers and ultimately the Arbitrators to figure out. Probably over 12000+ different opinions.. with many agreeing with common opinions and yet many in other camps with regards to how it should go down. Obviously, the two guys who were No 1 on their respective lists (At the snapshot) should still be considered No 1... however, what do you do if the LUAL No 1 took a Vol Fur, and the LCAL No 1 is now no longer on the list?! Things that make you go... hhhmmmm~ Motch |
Originally Posted by Olecal
(Post 1389043)
At the time of the merger announcement, all of the CAL voluntary furloughs were recalled. The 147 involuntary furloughs were just starting to receive their recall letters. Are you referring to the COLA? [COmpany Leave of Absence] If so, I don't remember how they were recalled and what their agreed upon return was. I know a friend of mine was on one and he posts/reads this forum. Hopefully he will reply~ Again, so many layers to this mess! Motch |
Originally Posted by routemap
(Post 1388887)
Here is my perspective, STALLER, LAX PILOT, and JSLED are very afraid of the arbitration award.
Some of these threads had really good SLI arguments, this one is just stupid, and feels a little desperate. They all need to take some deep breathes, bang a gong, repeat the Buddishist chant "Namu Myoho Renge Kyo", rearrange a Fung Shui garden, light some incense and take a giant chill pill. http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9...ej6wo1_500.gif |
Originally Posted by CALFO
Sled, I have no idea why that date is printed on every page (nor do I really care). Bid 12-03 would have come out in March, 2011. That's how CAL bids have historically worked. Perhaps there is some sort of error. I have no idea.
Originally Posted by CALFO
Oh, and the reason I question bid 12-03 is because the effective date of that bid would have been March, 2012. That typically means that the bid would have been published in March, 2011. That is why it doesn't make sense
|
EWRflyr said:
Actually, the reason is not so confusing. During that period, mainly due to the 787 anticipated arrivals and advance training required, the company ran some bids with an effective date farther out than the standard 12-14 months. There were a couple put out with effective dates 16-18 months down the road. Jsled is not wrong about the bid time date stamps he posted. IIRC, the bid he references was one of those bids which makes sense if you look at the bid result date and the effective date. EWRflyr......don't let facts get in the way of a good argument! :) Sled |
Originally Posted by Olecal
(Post 1388946)
Stop cherry picking and look at things for what they are. I can freely admit that you bring more widebody seat to the table, but if Boeing had there crap together, the ballgame would be quite different. All factors will be argued, what is considered is not up to you and I, only the arbitrators consideration will matter!
Sled |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:06 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands