SLI Transcript, Funny Stuff, LOL
 

This a cross examination of a sCAL expert:

Q- Well, let me just say the following.
With respect to Asia, for example. It --
Narita and Palau would both be a market which would
be reflected in these charts; correct?
A- If they were served by both carriers, yes.
Q- If they were served by either carrier.
A- Right.
Q- So Continental, flying somewhere in Asia
to Palau, would be the same in terms of a market,
would be the same as United flying from Chicago to
Hong Kong.
A- Or Narita to Seoul.
Q- That's what I'm trying to understand.
A- A short haul.
Q- It would be -- each one of those would be
a market; correct?
A- In this count; correct.
Q- All right. And these charts, Charts 8,
10, 12, and 14 don't say anything at all about the
frequencies between those city pairs?
A- No.
Q- And they don't say anything at all about
the available seat miles associated with any of
those markets; correct?
A- No.
But maybe I can help you a little bit.
I already testified yesterday both as to
traffic and seat miles and block hours. Continental
Airlines was more of an international carrier than
United.

Q- I know you did testify to that, and I'm
sure there will be additional testimony in the
course of the hearing on that point.
But just so we understand what these
charts show, in looking at Continental first, a
flight from Guam to Majuro, served once a week by a
737 for 1,850 miles and producing 291,000 available
seat miles is treated for these charts the same as a
flight from -- is the same as a flight on United
from Chicago to Hong Kong seven times a week at
7,790 miles producing $18.9 million -- 18.9 million
available seat miles per week; correct, for purposes
of these charts?
A- I think I just testified that these charts
are a count of markets defined by airport fares that
were served by either carrier in the reference time
period.
These charts don't talk about frequency or
length of haul within the geographical region.

Q- Or available seat miles?

A- That's correct.
But I just told you that in the aggregate,
Continental's available seat miles were a bigger
share of its system than is true at United, and the
difference was significant.

So. The main thrust of the CAL argument resembles one of these sad, pathetic, argumentative thread hijacks in APC?

Hmm, I wonder if it will work?

Doubtful. CAL strategy is to try and distract from "the law", which is ALPA merger policy, and abrogate longevity by trying to paint United as a desperate on the ropes airline all the while claiming to be the 800lb Gorilla in the airline world. You know, the big 3 .. Delta, American, United ... what did I leave out :) ? Unfortunately for CAL the facts don't support that as was aptly brought out under cross. I'm sure UAL will paint the same dire picture of CAL when they present. At the end of the day, I don't think either argument will prevail and the Arbitrators will follow ALPA merger policy rather closely.

If you keep reading the comparison the CAL attorneys make is that if you fly a 737 once a week between Guam and Majuro and United flies a 747 daily between Chicago and Hong Kong that they are the SAME because each one is flying between a "city pair".

So using CALs attorney's math 291,000 ASM on a 737 = 18,900,000 ASM on a 747.

The actual ratio is 65 to 1. Meaning there is 65 TIMES more ASMs between the UAL route and CAL route, but the CAL attorney tried to say they were the same because its "international" and a "city pair".

WOW. I wonder if he wore lifts in his shoes so that he could also make himself look taller while he stated it.

I did and posted it ...It must be early out there on the LEFT coast!

now now, hes paid to say that stuff and "twist" the truth, bc its in his side's best interest. i feel confident the panel of arbitrators will see the math at the end of the day. i mean the witness has to try, but the other side's lawyer has to bury and discredit him so that anything he says is taken lightly amongst the panel

My reading of former arbitrations shows that all the "we're awesome & they suck" posturing is by necessity thrown out because arbitrators are bending over backwards to appear neutral.

So, objectively, I think this is CALs weakest argument.

No, we can't blame him for trying. And I won't be mad at CAL pilots for their counsel putting forth the argument either. Just commenting on the futility of aruguing APC style in front of real people.;)

Yeppah .. in total agreement. Nicolau decision was a little different because US Air was in bankruptcy when America West stepped in. Ironically, UAL Counsel represented America West in those proceedings.

Pick and choose as you will,accept it your airline had been in steady decline .Basically a small airline with big old jets no plan, nothing..... Maybe the culture of arrogance with be silenced at the end of all this.What ever the outcome, I am sure the s ual guys will sue..So go ahead pull excerpts from the transcripts and gloat...yes you Lee. kind of sad you can't accept your airlines decline over the years ....too bad so sad......

I have been with United for 24 uninterrupted years. For a declining airline, funny I never had any concerns about not being paid, until this merger that is. UCH can't even figure out how to pay us on time. Over the last year the paychecks don't show on time and when they do, they are incomplete.
Regarding the Transcripts, If you can figure out how to post 259 pages here on the forum in one post, please share it with us so that I can post the entire documents. I have actually read through both transcripts (15th and 16th). The part I quoted above was just one of many examples of the far reaching weak arguments being used. Its actually funny to read. Tomorrow I will be there in person, its free admission and probably more entertaining than the improv! what is you name? I am not hiding as you can tell. Since I am in plain view, why don't you go run to your friend Fred and squeal.

You mean where the UAL attorney is cross examining and he asks the CAL guy about UAL's orders for 25 firm 787 orders and 50 options, plus the 25 firm A-350 orders and the 50 options and the CAL guy basically can't define "firm" because he doesn't know what that means!?

Or when they mentioned the first delivery of the A-350 the CAL attorney said that wasn't going to happen for 5 years and may not happen...then the UAL attorney said that 2015 was only 2 years away.

Like I said funny stuff indeed!

He was referencing 5 years from the firmed up order commitment date just prior to MAD. And may not happen is true based upon our experience with the 787 order placed in 2005 compared to where we are today. A350 first flight scheduled for just after the Paris air show this year, so mid-June-ish.

And even with the delay you got the 787 just like we will and the A-350. So that actually helps bolster the case. Thanks!

Be sure to mention me fondly to Freund when you bring forth this revelation!

If UAL is a "small" airline...what does that make CAL??

You CAN do basic math...right?

The numbers showed at the merger that UAL had 10 more airframes than CAL, but CAL flying more; and much more international. How's your math?

Cal flew more shorter flights. A 737 flies 4 legs with 2 pilots. A 747 flies one long leg with 4 piliots.

So you can argue CAL is bigger because they fly more flights with less pilots, or you can use common sense.

You can look at available seat miles, total pilots, total employees....

Your "predominantly guppy" airline will have more, short flights....but then again, so does Skywest.

You guys are getting your panties in a wad! Both parties will make their case, the arbitrators will decide....

WOW a moment of clarity in a sea of idiocy!! Well done tailwheel..

But so much sport spinning people up. Surely you've played this game on a 6 month carrier deployment ? You know, look for the weak spot, find it, then poke repeatedly :).

panties...weak spot.... poke repeatedly. Huh, what were we talking about again? I need a drink. And a smoke.

In the words of Larry the Cable Guy, "Now that's funny".

Looks like the Ual guy is wrapped up in the seniority list at cal, even mentioned Litigation on it.. Funny how he found something to dwell on, there ya go. Looks like a law suit coming from the UAl side. Take long as you like. Sounds like US air all over again.Go ahead and sue no imotional impact here. When's the next bid due out?;)

Why not. The continental side spent an inordinate amount of time comparing the cal seniority list/doh to that of a family of six fingered West Virginia children asking which cousin is their daddy. Therefore, if you can't make sense of it, you can't use it.

"hey darla jean, jimmy john brushed his tooth yet?"

It's ironic that your post has imotional (sic) rant written all over it.

Just think axl, these are the guys you might have to go to war with a few years down the road. lol

Well, it is going to interesting to hear what he said on a forum that may soon be part of an SLI arbitration transcript. In the overly dramatic "dead of night" no less.

There was a very interesting exchange late yesterday. They are talking about furloughed pilots who did not opt to take a position at CAL, and Mr. Katz is the lawyer representing CAL ALPA (for anyone that didn't already know that.)



Maybe, it's just me, but it sure seems that Arbitrator Eischen has some notion of what the plan is for the 7-B folks and is saying "I don't wanna hear any whining when the list comes out." Now who is he thinking of . . . that we won't know 'til the end.

This is more fun than I expected. Of course when I lose 10% relative seniority and end up a bottom FO in EWR maybe then I won't thinks it's so funny.

You mean his 3,167 posts on that forum where he shares his thoughts on seniority integrations, national lists, and other things like that?

Some of them are really interesting....

Yea, I tried an old logon but was denied.

You mean the last one that was in January 2011, had a total of 8 posts back to Oct 2010, then nothing until May of 2008. Really?

It won't let you click on his name and see his posts, but using google you can find some interesting stuff...

Like where he talks about how great it would be to be a widebody first officer, only working 10 days a month and travelling the world. He refers to widebody first officer as "living the good life" and "chilling out".

In another post he talks about that same seniority can also be a 737 Captain and work more days then says "who'd want to do that?"

With regards to a 737 Captain making slightly more than a widebody FO he has an opinion on that as well....

Then he says "This stuff isn't all about the money and shouldn't be".

Really. If in 2004 a pilot believes that being a widebody FO is a better job than a 737 Captain, its probably still true. The job hasn't changed in the last 10 years, and isn't going to moving forward.

So this "stovepipe" discussion and "Captains merged with Captains" just goes to show a great deal of hypocrisy.

You can't just argue base pay rates with regards to what is a better job. This CAL pilot stated his preference on a public forum.

I agree with him. Widebody F/O is a better job that narrowbody Captain.

And 9 years later.. after flying at a Mainline he has a different opinion.. so what?

If you're betting that an Internet Post from years back is going to influence the Arbitrators, you are not giving those 3 people the credit they deserve.

Motch

PS> My opinions on some things have changed dramatically over a decade, and in some cases they haven't changed at all and instead have gotten stronger~

Oh, and my "opinions" will most likely not have ANY bearing on the Arbitrators decisions.

One schmuck pilot out of 12000+?! LOL

We are all entitled to our opinions. Facts are another thing. Both sides will try to spin the "Facts" in their way. It will be up to an Arbitrator to determine what the "Facts" really are.

We will know that by end of August (hopefully)

Absolutely.

It just happens that this person's opinions are being presented as testimony so the standard of 'schmuckness' is elevated.