SLI Perspective
 

The merger announcement date was in May 2010. Bid 12-03 was the first bid AFTER the MAD for Continental. It's results are in Skynet for all to see. It was posted in Sept, 2010. Here are the junior Captain awards in each domicile.

IAH 787 CAP 6/84
777 CAP 10/84
756 CAP 5/90
737 CAP 11/98

EWR 777 CAP 3/86
756 CAP 10/95
737 CAP 8/98

CLE 737 CAP 7/98
GUM 737 CAP 5/05

Except GUM, the junior Capt at CAL was hired in 1998. The junior Capt at UAL was hired in 1996 at the time of the merger announcement. Pretty close. Things that make you go hmmmmmm.

Sled the deep thinker

At the time of the merger I had been a bus Capt for 6 years.
-Jan 96 hire

ok. corrected. No data for the UAL side, just going from memory after the 2008 backslide (I'm a 97 hire that was bumped from Capt in 09). The point being the 2 airlines were pretty close as far as captain hire dates. Not so much today, but that's a result of post-merger announcement bids.

Sled

I could be wrong, but I believe a lot of those date are COEX hire dates, not mainline.

Plus I, guessing it was in a pretty decent domicile.

At the time of the merger some 96 hires had been Captains since 1999!

12-03 wouldn't have been the first system bid after the announcement of the merger. This bid would have been released in March of 2011.

Not that any of this matters.......

Those would be CAL hire dates (or crossover relative dates for the express people)....

The COEX dates only apply to pass travel and some longevity, NOT monthly or system bidding or staffing equations.

Yes, but on the list he is using, the COEX dates are published on the seniority list. How else could you explain 95 hires junior to 98 hires?

So is the Cal seniority list out of sequence? A 98 hire bids higher than a 95 hire?:confused:

If you have access, go look at the coair seniority list. The answer is YES if you look at the seniority list. The DOH shown is sometimes the COEX hire date, but seniority (bidding) is determined by the actual date they came to mainline, not the COEX hire date that is on that list. I could be wrong, but if you are a CAL pilot, you would know this!

There was movement in 2005-2007 at CAL, many of us 2005 hires/flowthroughs held and trained to Captain positions by '07. Age 65 changed that...

in addition...

CAL also reduced capacity and eliminated 67 mainline aircraft from its fleet by the end of 2009, retiring all of Continental's 737-300s and all but 35 of its 737-500s

So I guess we were getting 'right-sized' too

None of this speculation matters, it goes both ways...we can stand on both sides of the fence and cherry pick our agenda's all day long...in the end, the Arbitrator's decide and that's it...period..speculation and what is owed, deserved, earned, promised, contracted out agreed to...be damned

What is Jay Pierce's hire date and is that date when he started with cal or express?

Hadn't thought about ol' Jay in that light. Do you think he's trying to screw both side to get a seniority leap ahead?

There's only 3 people who's perspective on the SLI matter, and something tells me they're not going to be posting on here.:)

sled

I am 98 hire and ungraded to the B737 left seat in 07. BTW I was not an express pilot. Some in my class upgraded before me. I was even holding the line at EWR before reductions at EWR at the end of 08.

Damn. Cats out of the bag. I think he is also responsible for faster polar ice cap melting as well.

Pierce is about 37 to 38% as an 89 hire. Not sure what he holds.....maybe 737 ca.

Correct...

My kids use to watch a cartoon called "Pinky and the Brain". Not sure but I think it's still on TV - You'd like it and it would give you better material. Just trying to help. :)

And I am a 97 hire who could hold 737 and 727 Captain in 2000. Then actually upgraded on the 737 in 2007. I'm just trying to get a comparison close to MAD.

Sled

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

The great irony is win or lose I won't let SLI wreck my day or even career like so many here clearly do. With the movement coming over the next 5 years anyone still p!ssed at their status in life in 10 years was going to have a miserable career no matter what. So keep slinging dates of upgrades from multiple time slices and percentages of holy widebody seats if it makes your innards stir. It won't change the time tested law in every merger that we all are going to be p'od at the result.

+1

The key is to insure that everybody is equally p'od. That will verify that the award was fair. :)

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!

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.

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.

Yes there was, we had a flow though agreement...You could get in 3 ways...the top 110 guys/gals on the COEX list when the flow through agreement was signed...Interview, or RJ PIC for 2 years.The interviews were conducted in 98-2000 and those hired were put into a pool with off the street hires with a guarantee of a class date when the ratio kicked in. The IPO was the only reason the tie was severed. But agreements were still bound by the two companies in MOU and pref hire status.

The first half of many flowthrough retained their board dates as their date of hire, only the IPO eliminated the board date as a means to payscale once the transition to CAL happened. Which is why the MOU agreements were signed...

Again, this is just trudging up the past but maybe it will shed some light on why you may be getting "board date" answers for hire dates from CAL pilots...my advice would be to not ask as you probably already know the answer and any other discussion would just lead to disagreement.

Sorry you don't like the answer, but it's probably what most would tell you

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.

Wow! You must lead a charmed life, a true pleasure to be around! I've have never seen someone who harbors this kind of hatred for others they don't even know (except the ignorant!)! Good luck out there, you're gonna need it.

Wow ... Simply stated, but so matter of fact ... simple enough for anyone to understand, like 3 arbitrary lawyers.

My guess is that today will have some relevance. Might want to check your stats, but you won't! As per you, CAL is a norrowbody airline (which actually paid higher than 3/4 of UAL's frames), in our narrowbody BES's, CAL has 10% more CA's than FO's, therefore evening out the percentage to very close to 50%...