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:







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?