|
Originally Posted by cadetdrivr
(Post 1394858)
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. |
Originally Posted by 13n144e
(Post 1394783)
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: 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 |
Originally Posted by Sunvox
(Post 1394869)
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 "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" |
Originally Posted by CALFO
(Post 1395173)
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 . . . The ISL was created on the basis of a Status and Category grouping that is organized, within each group, according to date of hire. |
Originally Posted by Sunvox
(Post 1395185)
and this is taken directly from the document as well . . .
How do a furloughed pilot fit? |
Originally Posted by CALFO
(Post 1395188)
Ok. I see it now.
How do a furloughed pilot fit? |
Originally Posted by LAX Pilot
(Post 1395191)
Furloughees were placed based on their longevity and not stapled. In this award they were ahead of active pilots.
|
Originally Posted by CALFO
(Post 1395199)
I still don't see it in the award. Were those furloughs recalled between merger announcement and isl?
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. |
Originally Posted by CALFO
(Post 1395199)
I still don't see it in the award. Were those furloughs recalled between merger announcement and isl?
14 The ISL contains the names of some 59 pilots who currently hold both Mesaba and Pinnacle seniority numbers. Unless an existing agreement provides otherwise, these pilots are to select one number or the other at or before achievement of the Single Operating Certificate. 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. |
Originally Posted by LAX Pilot
(Post 1395211)
"...............
Longevity was added as a mandatory element to prevent a CAL ALPA style recommended seniority list. 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? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:20 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands