Don't all LUAL flights have just one captain on them? With so many more widebodies I would think LUAL would have much higher proportion of FOs to captains than at LCAL since the ratio of FO to captain is 3 to 1.

Quick look at April shows 2336ish UAL CA's to 2172 CAL CA's.

That's my point. More widebodies does not equal a lot more captains. However it does mean a lot more FOs. Since LUAL is mostly widebody it's seniority list is mostly FOs by a much wider margin. I would guess LCAL has 2500 FOs while LUAL has 3000 or more. That also has to be considered in the career expectations argument.

I notice you chose not to engage in a straight up debate based on pure numbers for 2008 and 2009 . . . and spare me the trite reposte . . .

none the less, I sense that some here do not fully comprehend the CAL proposal so allow me to elaborate. For those that already understand I ask your indulgence, as this is as much an exercise in my own entertainment as it is an attempt to elucidate the masses.


CAL proposes Cap:Cap and FO:FO.

So if UAL has 6000 pilots and CAL has 4000 pilots and UAL has 2000 Caps and Cal has 2000 Caps then

0 to 2000
0 to 2000 = 1:1
and 0 to 4000 is the new start of the new list and number 3999 is the number 2000 CAL pilot who was 50% but is now 40% and the percentile boost maxes out at number 2000 and diminishes to zero at number 10,000.


Now compare that to past integration. In the past arbitrators have used 4 groups WB-C, NB-C, WB-FO, NB-FO. So in that list let's make up some numbers.

UAL 1000 WB-C 1000 NB-C 3000 WB-FO 1000 NB-FO
CAL 0500 WB-C 1500 NB-C 0500 WB-FO 1500 NB-FO

in that case based on history the list puts the number 2000 CAL pilot at about 70% verus 40% and that ladies and gentleman is the heart of the argument.

You forgot to look under TI, training, under the sCAL side.

Yes, and every CAL pilot on this board is failing to argue the issues surrounding these assumptions. Can you explain to me why this argument is logical and then can you explain with equal fervor why not.

The premise surrounding Cap:Cap and FO:FO is based on drawing trendlines through UAL business results from pre-2008. I will be very surprised if the arbitrators except that logic.

Not following your numbers.....Your Sketch doesn't add up.

Fuzzy math at best.

The UAL proposal leans heavily on ALL THREE tenets. I don't have the exact quote, but I recall reading that even if you assume only age 65 retirements and a static fleet, the most jr furloughee would be able to hold widebody captain for years.

The CAL proposal completely ignores one of the three tenets -- longevity.

BTW, I don't know what they author intended by 'meaningful', but I read it as saying that we have more than a token fleet of real widebody aircraft. In that sense, the number of widebody aircraft have a 'meaningful' effect on career expectations. In spite of with CALs misguided attempt to game the ISL with the stupid banding scheme, it remains a fact that larger aircraft have higher payrates. Even on a common fleet (75/76) there are pay disparities based on aircraft size.

I agree with you here. But I think there is more to it than what you laid out here.

Longevity (when was the pilot hired minus the time on furlough)
Status and Category (Capt / FO - NB / WB. Nothing to do with the number of aircraft)
Career Expectations (what equipment pilots would end up on)

Some of us don't come to argue. I just stated a fact. I will leave the arguments to those we have to represent us. I have the greatest faith in the guys that represent me on the ISL issue and I will live with the final outcome. However, I do support your right to waste your time on this issue.