Originally Posted by intrepidcv11

It won't change the time tested law in every merger that we all are going to be p'od at the result.

Originally Posted by Olecal

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!

Originally Posted by vspeed

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

Originally Posted by Olecal

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!

Originally Posted by LAX Pilot

That's a terrible argument. There was no "Expectation" or "Guarantee" that a COEX hire would be hired by CAL. Also, a career expectation is just that, regardless of being active or not.

An ACTIVE CAL pilot has 188 777 Captain jobs to look forward to.

A FURLOUGHED UAL pilot has about 800 747 or 777 Captain jobs to look forward to.

Originally Posted by LAX Pilot

That's a terrible argument. There was no "Expectation" or "Guarantee" that a COEX hire would be hired by CAL. Also, a career expectation is just that, regardless of being active or not.

An ACTIVE CAL pilot has 188 777 Captain jobs to look forward to.

A FURLOUGHED UAL pilot has about 800 747 or 777 Captain jobs to look forward to.

Originally Posted by Staller

Anything I've said was a lie - please let me know!

Yes - Not likely to be a Buck and Bubba type if you know what I mean. There will be no hand holding - Sorry!

Originally Posted by vspeed

Disagree with how you are using expectations. A career expectation for a furloughed pilot temporarily ceases to exist when furloughed...hence the meaning of the word furlough. Besides benefits, expectations shift to a priority of returning to work first, then continuing normal line of progression within the Active company ranks where expectations can then resume. Historically, furloughs have prevailed at airlines instead of layoffs since the unions require/enforce them and their protections afforded in CBA contracts. If the company had it their way, a layoff would be used instead of a furlough severing all ties including benefits.

Originally Posted by LAX Pilot

Today is not relevant. Also 50% doesn't hold Captain. You probably weren't aware of this, but there are more FO's than Captains because the widebody fleets fly with 1 Captain and 3 FO's much of the time. So Based on the total number of Captain jobs it was a 94 hire.

Also there is a big deal between a career as a 737 pilot and flying a 747 A-350 or 777.