But I thought it was important to look back at the past decade to get "the whole picture" :D

Just found this Neal quote:

Really doesn't matter, but it sure is fun. The test will be when UAL pilots are on the stand if I can poke fun at them too and still enjoy it.

You know the truth is that Neal is probably a hell of an awesome guy and super smart as well. I don't blame him for helping him present the info the way he did.

This just sort of lets you know he really does get it, but in this case, he isn't on the right end of the argument, so he's just being selective.

Opinion and personal preferences are useless. I'm sure to a domestic rj pilot, the lifestyle of a widebody FO seems quite appealing. For me, today 737 CA is best for my situation. I don't have a lot of day off requirements, and I can front load my b fund with time and principal. As my kids get older, the bes seniority and days off of a widebody FO will have more appeal. So what?

As far SLI goes, the same applies. One seat in and of itself is not better than any other, except to the point that the individual pilot decides what is important. It's not about your actual seat, it's about the number of choices of seat you have to choose from based on your seniority. I've read a lot about the career expectations at UAL of being able to hold widebody Captain for x number of years before retirement, but no one has mentioned that the same expectations existed at CAL. The junior wb Captain at CAL is 20% seniority; the junior wb Captain at UAL is 15% seniority. So even with fewer wb aircraft, there was greater opportunity on the CAL side. ***I only included 777, 747, and 787 in those calculations and left out the 767. I am on the CAL side, and I will admit that is a bit misleading to say that we have wb Captains at 60% (2005 hire date), even though it is technically true.***

I've also read a bunch of nonsense about upgrading out of seniority. You know there is no such thing. The CAL Captains are not unusually junior than the UAL Captains. The junior nb Captain seat is within 2% system seniority of each other. Nothing significant about that. All that to say, is that when you filter through all the bs, both airlines offered roughly the same career options as the other. The only new dynamic with the combined seniority is the ability to bid a base the requires a shorter commute, or none at all. I know it's been said that CALs bases suck, and frankly, that's what I thought when I applied here. But having moved to Houston from SoCal in 2005, I can't see myself going back. We have made quite a home here; good friends, good schools, good church, good dog park, and ok beaches (but the food and entertainment in Galveston is awesome). My point is, just like seat assignment, the quality of a base is in the eye of the individual pilot.

I enjoy reading the posts from both sides. It mirrors politics, sports, and religion in the sense that everyone thinks that if everyone else would just see it objectively, they would see it my way. It's kind of comical when you think about it. That said, in my mind are three scenarios...one where I get a bump in seniority (staple furloughees), one where I get screwed (furloughs going ahead of active pilots), and what I think will actually happen. I'll say it again for the record, the committees that represent our particular sides are charged to do just that. Even though we're in arbitration, it's just another form of negotiation. Ask for the moon, settle for something less. Whatever comes of this, I will accept without animosity toward my fellow pilot. I hope we can all say the same while the outcome is still up in the air.

Well.....that's certainly one way to rationalize it.

And that's the point. This whole SLI is a process of rationalizing why one group should make out better than the other. The above quote was a response to the rationalizing previously put out by UAL pilots about why they deserve better seniority.

Kind of like the whole "right sizing" rationalization. You can't say one side was right sized for a merger, and completely ignore the fact that the other side also parked 63 737-3/5s. It doesn't make sense.

That's not opportunity. Its VARIABILITY. This also means that there are more narrowbody Capts in the top 20% at CAL than UAL.

Just because you have a different bidding pattern doesn't mean anything. CAL has fewer bases that are much larger, which promotes that kind of variability in the bidding.

What a bunch of nonsense. Have you ever considered that you're not on the "right" side. Or - which is absolutely the case here - that there's more than one "right" side and that both sides have valid perspectives and rationals. There are no absolutes in this debate and their won't be in the award either. And if you don't think the outcome is "right"...your just SOL.

The award (interesting choice of word) will be absolute itself, and every debate has absolutes. You can not alter the number of wb aircraft in your fleet and historically that has been the single biggest factor in deciding ISLs.


In recent history:

USAir/Am West, category/class/ratio
DAL/NWA category/class ratioed,
Pinnable/Mesaba/Colgan category/class DOH (that's the most recent ISL under the "new" ALPA merger policy).


You can argue that 767-400s are the same as 747s until you are blue in the face. You can debate career expectations until you are blue in the face. You can debate who had better financials until you are blue in the face, but remember USAir was on the verge of liquidation, they had zero career expectaion and they got category/class ratioed. Pinnacle bought Mesaba and Delta told Mesaba they were eliminating 75% of their fleet, they had zero career expectation, and still the arbitrators went with category and class and DOH. Turns out career expectations are really hard to quantify and adjust for, but category and class is really easy to count.


There are most definitely absolutes you can't alter, UAL had more WBs and longer longevity on average. Those are absolutes. Argue that CAL deserves credit for better future expectations all you want; it won't change the absolute facts.


But,


I could be wrong,


AND


it doesn't matter 'cuz the future is bright regardless or at least I like to believe so :)

Quality post Mr. Special . . .

quality.

I guess it was entertaining for you though so good work. Sorry if my optimism is upsetting to your delicately balanced global cynicism. I'll work harder next time to be more negative with my posts. I'd hate to be accused of changing the mood on APC.

I wonder if the UAL guys figured out if FARK held CLE SRJ Capt. Wow trolling the Crackpipe. That's just what I would want to pin my merger hopes on...:rolleyes:

Btw thanks for completely jacking this thread with your gif ST.

I'm afraid you misunderstand my post. I completely agree with you. After the ISL there will be plenty of opportunities for us. The high number of retirements will create bids and advancement. Once the true economic value of the merger comes to fruition, will strongly compete with DAL and AMR resulting in a UAL growth platform for many years to come.

Well that wouldn't be the first or last mistake I've made for sure.

My sincere apologies; I thought you were trying to say I was a cute cheerleader and we all know that's hitting below the belt :D

....................

Sunvox,

I was kinda was making fun of you. I did pick the darn cutest cheerleader I could find though. ;)

Don't worry Maxepr. There will be no delay. If our side balks, the company put out another one of your megabids. If your side balks, the company will just put out bids on those 50- 900ERs to sUAL exclusively. The T&PA spells out how "replacement" aircraft will be bid. There is leverage for both sides. ;)

Sled

You seem to have convinced yourself of the unassailable superiority of your position. Good for you to be so open minded. I'm not entering anymore futile, fruitless debates on the percieved equities of one side or the other. I wouldn't want to dampen your false sense of security. However no single merger has had such a simplistic resolution as you suggest. That's why arbitration generally lasts several months, the awards run near 100 pages, and neither side is ever completely happy with the result. I'll grant you one absolute; it's absolutely clear that the "new merger policy" that is the mantra of s-UAL, absolutely provided for binding arbitration by placing the UPA ahead of the ISL. Binding arbitration will actually be binding. Out of curiosity, what is your source for the Bloch Award for Colgan-Mesaba-Pinnacle. Have you actually seen the award is that more useless ACP crap your so fond of interpreting? If you've actually seen the award, please provide a link.

You are.:rolleyes:

Yeah, it was also the mantra of your own MEC Merger Committee Chairman.

FWIW, that award and another dozen relevant SLI awards are posted on the UAL Merger Committee website. I'm actually surprised that CAL has not done the same if it's not there for every CAL pilot to read.

But...if you want to read it, here's a public link.

Why would the CAL Merger Committee post them?? They're not germane to the arguments they made, or the ISL they proposed.

I am sorry if my approach to analyzing previous awards is upsetting to you, and yes not only did I read each award cover to cover, but I went onto other forums and asked questions about the awards from the people involved and I read the dissenting opinion in the Nicoleau award. The UAL MEC posted this information before there was even a merger actually announced and the ALPA library had even more documents online. I also have another thread in which I posted some specifics of the Pinnacle lists makeup. Did you know that list put furloughed pilots in with active pilots. Shocking! Impossible!

So, like I said I could be wrong, but there is a long history of category and class integration even when companies have vastly different "career expectations". So if I have to chose between expecting a list similar to what history shows is likely and a list with a whole new underlying paradigm that will favor the company with perceived better financials and career expectations, then yes I admit I claim "unassaiable superiority".

Again sorry if the historical facts upset you.

Joe Peck


Here is the Pinnacle list taken from the actual document, and I would note that within each silo the pilots were sorted based on DOH even though this was a "windfall" for some pilots especially since they had zero career expectations with the planned removal of the 50 seat fleet from the Delta code share agreement:



http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps66adaf3d.jpg



Pinnacle ISL Decision

This is taken directly from the award that you reference: doesn't mention anything of doh or furlough.

"A. The Integrated Seniority List (ISL) for the pilot groups at issue shall be based on Status and Category, in accordance with the list appended to this Award as Attachment A.14"

and this is taken directly from the document as well . . .

Ok. I see it now.

How do a furloughed pilot fit?

Furloughees were placed based on their longevity and not stapled. In this award they were ahead of active pilots.

I still don't see it in the award. Were those furloughs recalled between merger announcement and isl?

It didn't matter. Their longevity was given to them at 100% within their bucket that they had been placed...

The arbitrators didn't look at active or not. They just looked at their longevity. It's likely they will do something similar here.

Longevity was added as a mandatory element to prevent a CAL ALPA style recommended seniority list.

It was only mentioned in a footnote, and not even discussed as furloughed pilots. They show up because they were furloughed from Mesaba and hired by Pinnacle after the merger announcement, and ended up on the list mixed in by DOH with the Turboprop FO silo ahead of all Constructive Notice Pilots. Even stranger they were placed on the list twice, first for their position on the Pinnacle list which put them in the Constructive Notice Group and second for their Mesaba hire date which moved them up the list quite a bit, and then they got to chose which number they wanted to pick. The latter part has been explained to me by a Colgan pilot, but I do not have access to the actual list so I can not verify the facts other than to say the footnote in the ISL decision clearly indicates they exist.

Just wondering if you were a 2005 hire at CAL and holding a CA slot, would you be advocating what you do now? I hardly doubt it....... Hard to understand how a pilot that was on property for only a year
should go senior to someone who's never been furloughed and been on property for eight years. Where is the fairness in that?

It's a shame that your MEC, merger committee, and merger council don't seem familiar with the concept of longevity. You do realize that longevity and DOH can be different right?

Let me ask you a few questions >> A Jan 2008 hire at CAL has at MOST 5 yrs and 2 months longevity (assuming they weren't furloughed...which I believe they were). I (Jan 1997 hire) have 16 years and 2 months longevity (I was never furloughed). Your proposed list has me in the middle of that group...where is the fairness in that??

You guys might want to think about the concept of longevity.

I was a 96 hire and held a captain slot in 2000. Then 9/11 came. Then I was a 96 hire and got to Airbus Captain. Then oil shot through 150/barrel. Then congress raised retirement age to 65. I was already on my second left seat upgrade when you got hired by a major. I've been on the property, never furloughed, for over 16 years, have sat in the left seat for three of those years, have been 6 months junior to the junior captain for the last 5 years (thanks to age 65). And, I understand how you want to hold on to what you have. With no "system flush", you will. Just realize that what your MEC proposes essentially eradicates 10 years of work and that, if it were to be implemented, my career would be better if I resigned and became a new hire at Southwest. THAT'S how out of touch that CAL proposed SLI is.

Just wondering how YOU'D feel under the same circumstances, if you were a 96 UAL hire.

Your not sorry and, trust me, I'm not upset. In fact I'm not the least interested in your analysis or your "historical facts". My initial point was that both sides are bringing equities to the table and I was trying to objective in allowing that both sides have valid arguments. Thanks for making it abundantly clear what a waste of time any attempt at objectivity is with s-UAL. Please return to your regularly scheduled pedantic bickering. If you really want to debate the validity of your "absolutes" I'll look forward to having that discussion in September...

In the meantime, thanks for the link.

No prob, and I agree can't wait for September. :D