Originally Posted by Ottopilot

My question is, "Why did you vote 'yes' on a contract with that paybanding?"

Originally Posted by Ottopilot

My question is, "Why did you vote 'yes' on a contract with that paybanding?"

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking

Nice diversion. But alas, we are not talking about the vote are we? We are talking about pay banding and it's underlying intentions. A product well before the vote.

So why was the 767-300 split from the 767-400 when the 747-400 was banded with much smaller aircraft?

Originally Posted by Ottopilot

No diversion. You complain about paybanding. Did you vote for it or against it? I voted against it.

The intentions of paybanding are not an issue. There are no intentions. That was industry standard and that is what both negotiating committees decided on. You can't put every aircraft in its own band. You have to draw the line somewhere. "Why was the 747 banded with smaller aircraft?" Would you have them band it with larger aircraft? Which one? We are not getting the A380. Our rates are high on that aircraft to set "industry standard" for our competition who might get it.

The contract was not forced on anyone, we had a vote. How did you vote?

Originally Posted by LAX Pilot

Exactly. The charade of pilots who are very junior getting Captain seats of out seniority because the work rules and flying is so horrible on reserve or being junior doesn't mean every CAL pilot who passed up a Captain bid should get a seniority advantage.

UAL brings far more Captain positions as well as far more widebody flying. This means that there will be more United pilots by far that occupy the top half of the seniority list and more CAL pilots in the bottom half.

Its not the fault of United pilots that pilots at CAL chose to pass up Captain, while at United, more pilots didn't pass up the position. Its also a result of only have a couple pilot bases, and larger bases are more likely to have position bidding variability. Smaller bases are more likely to have position bidding efficiency. UAL having multiple bases around the US means less commuters and more pilots willing to be on reserve. Plus the much better reserve rules make it easier to upgrade as soon as possible instead of what happened at CAL.

I think the arbitrator is going to see right through that one.

It would be ironic if the lousy work rules at CAL (which is what caused lineholding FOs to not bid Captain) ended up benefitting them.

It would also be ironic if CAL pilots having super bases in undesirable cities ended up benefitting them, as they lateral and bid out to decent places to live.

Stick to the merger policy....

Longevity (when was the pilot hired)
Status and Category (how many of each type of aircraft were brought)
Career Expectations (what equipment pilots would end up on)

The rest is folly and speculation.

Originally Posted by gofastmopar

I think you'll find longevity a relative term for "time on the property getting paid"

Originally Posted by vspeed

Just read through both...

uals -

Argumentative, outdated falsities and preachy...even calling out an arbitrator as opining...nice..the whole thing reaks of a seniority grab and tries to establish furlough credit based on equity that would be eventually achieved as pilots retire allowing the furloughs to move up (not an increase in capacity, growth or business model / performance of the company) - great expectation...well one day our guys will graduate from furlough and move up as the elder lists retire...the fact that so many were on furlough for 10+ years gives credit to ual being the weaker business model bringing less equity to the table, regardless of how many 'whales' they had...the facts remain the international block hours were higher at CAL than ual. It even goes so far as to try an rewrite the CAL seniority list pre-sli to suit their own argument better - good luck with that!

CALs-

Clear, direct stated fact with a clear goal based on fair and equitable reasoning and charted performance, whereas the ual side contradicted itself saying it would not get into specific derivations but the sinks to a level of argumentative by assuming CAL positions and arguing them out in the opening statement.

Originally Posted by gofastmopar

I think you'll find longevity a relative term for "time on the property getting paid"

Originally Posted by AxlF16

Because your weak dick Mstr Chmn and MEC wouldn't allow any progress on the JCBA until they 'got their way'. An epic temper tantrum that a 3 year old would be proud of.

So here it is in very clear terms:

• By not agreeing to a compromise, CAL ALPA had the ability to delay the JCBA as long as they wanted.
• At the macro level, delaying the JCBA had very little negative impact to the CAL pilot group over the near term (2-5 years).
• CAL ALPA leadership demonstrated they would go so far as to violate the terms of the TPA in order to get extra $$ for the CAL pilots.
• CAL ALPA leadership, without question, was single target track on SLI and, IMO, would do ANYTHING to place the CAL pilot group in a position of advantage.
• I don't trust the CAL ALPA leadership. I would bet my life that they would've colluded with management in any way they could to F*CK over the UAL pilots if they believed it would help their SLI argument.
• The CAL pilot group, although some voiced disgust/displeasure/disagreement with the obvious strategy, were unwilling to put a stop to it. IMO, because they were hoping it WOULD put them in a position of advantage. I won't condemn at the individual pilot level, but IMO the CAL pilot group is complicit in the strategy because they didn't end it.
• There was only ONE way to put and end to that strategy. Vote Yes.

Hope that's clear enough for you. Be careful swinging double edged swords.