Report Generated: 9/17/2010 9:29:39 AM......this is printed on every page of the bid results. Kinda hard to release it in 2011 when the results are posted in 2010. And I bet It will matter more than all the bids SINCE 2010 with ORD and DEN domiciles and 2006 Cap awards. We'll see.

Sled

OK. On the SCAL side as a 98 hire I never lost my Captain's seat and had to go back to the right and I am a line holder. Hope this helps

I have seen the clusters of out of sequence dates within your list. It's not hard to figure out where they are in the list. (4 1995 dudes within a sea of 1998 hires) The dates above are true hire dates, not Express.

Sled

Yes. They are going to argue that's their "longevity" even though on the seniority list they gave them 0 credit for it.

I've already had a couple CAL folks use their Coex hire date when I asked them when they were hired at Continental.

Sled,

This comparison is skewed and the CAL guys know it, but still like to spout it out.

It doesn't matter what hire dates are in a seat. For every pilot holding Captain out of seniority, their is a pilot still holding FO who is more senior.

All that's going to matter is how many jobs of each type (big vs little airplane) each side brought. CAL brought 188 777 Captains according to their last system bid. Doesn't matter who is sitting there.

If their base structure and work rules were like ours, and every pilot that could actually hold Captain bid it, their junior Captain would be a 1994 hire.

It's possible because there is no vote on SLI. Jay Pierce may get to leap in front of a bunch of CAL guys as well UAL guys. I don't know maybe it will be payback - I mean he is called Prima!

UAL MEC is likely on top of this one.

Two way street...I'm sure they were probably countering a popular L-UAL's assertion/argument of 13+ years total longevity (including furlough) for SLI positioning rather than just payscale (involved in the civil lawsuit) with actual 4-5 on property not on furlough...can't blame them either...if someone from L-UAL argues that they should get not only pay but SLI positioning based on time on property AND furlough, then why should a board date versus hire date be tossed aside? Same difference...plus one could argue that those on the board date at COEX were joined to the hip of CAL subject to furlough ties at mainline based on the subsidiary relationship between CAL and COEX before the XJT IPO. Therefore career progression at COEX to XJT and then the flowthrough to CAL were all based on board date which held more power at the time than relative seniority to any specific company. If you use the argument of 'right-sizing' back to the 2000's, then you have to consider the strong tied relationship and career progression of mainline to the regional feeder as the subsidiary relationship existed. Hence the reason for post IPO MOU'S drawn up by CAL and ALPA... Complicated, ain't it,...I wouldn't worry though...not like our opinions have anything to do with anything...but if someone tells be they have been at UAL for 13 years but only on property for 4-5..well then I'm a 96 hire :)

nobody will ascend or descend within their own list. That's why it really doesn't matter that some guys have CoEx hire dates. They are where they are within their list and that won't change. At least it hasn't in the history of ALPA mergers that I am aware of.

Sled

That would be pretty hard since at the time of merger CAL's 50% was a March 1998 hire. Currently the 50% is approximately an April 2005 hire! Geez, please stop with the hatchet math, both you and staller are relentless to bash CAL. Guys like you are gonna be a pleasure to fly with!

Not sure what you are saying. There was no pay for furlough time. Longevity is time on property.

Sled