Funny...you refer to an airline (assuming you're waving your pom-poms for CAL as the proverbial 800 pound Gorilla/"Global airline" force to-be-reckoned with in your analogy) with 8 BILLION in unencumbered cash as a "broke" airline. Will give you the "poorly managed" part, but they still had a truck load of cash at their disposal. As I recall...the purchase of CAL was in cash, was it not??

So...United has 8 BILLION in cash and is broke? Must be the "CAL way" of adding funny little definitions in a futile attempt to confuse and obfuscate fact...

That's funny; sounds reminiscent of the CAL "opener" from last week...

Cheers,
Horhay

DOH is longevity, unless you were furloughed. Subtract out the time on furlough, you have longevity.

For most of us those two terms are the same thing.

And a side note is that ALPA defines it exactly. So its only time on the "mainline" carrier (i.e. not from feeder carriers that are owned by the same company) and takes out time on furlough.

So when we look at the list and see 1997 hires that are junior to 2001 hires and we scratch our heads, its because that person was at a subsidiary airline, then didn't get hired to the main company until 2001, so they don't get credit for those extra years.

Nice try tho.....

Longevity is a "factor" that "shall be" considered. The goal is to "attempt" to create a list that is "fair & equitable". Absolutely nothing in the policy tells the panel "how" to make a list. They could use the cycles of the moon or the number of redheads per base. It has been suggested that the language is intentionally vague to protect ALPA.

Yes, some pilots don't like flying long-haul, and do bid back.

Also, a proper seniority integration will make sure that those pilots don't have to fly them if they don't want, but that those that should have that opportunity, will get to.

But I noticed that on the list provided by CAL that a very large number of widebody FOs (who can hold 737 and 756 Captain) have decided to stay 777 FO's.

So what's may seem rational, that because narrowbody Captain pays slightly more per hour, that as many if not more pilots would rather be widebody FOs.

So in practice, it appears that pilots would rather only fly 10 days a month for roughly the same pay, instead of flying 18 days a month for a little more. Widebody FO's actually get paid more per day than narrowbody Captains.

So when Sunvox is putting together his "status and category" list, I wouldn't be so sure to just rank all the Captains ahead of all FO's. On neither list are all Captains senior to all FO's and for good reason.

This was pointed out very eloquently by one of the CAL Merger Committee members from his previous posts on another public internet forum.

I may be explaining something that you already know, but in the type of list I am using as a guess the pilots are "stovepiped."

Just in case someone here doesn't understand what that is, let's take a look:

• WB-CP UAL(1557)/CAL(0741) new list numbers 00000 to 02298

so for the start of the list you have 1557/741 wide body captains. Obviously numbers 1 thru 1557 are not all wide body captains. Some may even be 747 FOs so they may be in the WBFO list, but that doesn't matter because the first 1557 positions to be merged are the first 1557 seniority numbers on the UAL list. Another way of saying this is when they build the list they assume that everyone has bid to the highest position they can.


If you already understand this I appreciate your patience ;)

And, LAX . . . what's the other forum where the CALMEC dude posted?

The guy's gonna make an outstanding check airmen. Those that know him speak only highly of him and I'll bet most doing training will echo that sentiment. You might think it tongue in cheek, but the fact you took the time to hate on a stranger on APC shows how shallow you are. Stay classy.

Here's another breakdown of "fair and equitable" career expectations. Before the merger, assuming I stay healthy to retirement, my seniority number would be about 815. If CAL's "fair and equitable" SLI proposal were to be implemented, I'd retire on the same day at number 5000. I'm sure our MEC will address that, because it holds true for the majority of those of us hired in '96. So, essentially, their proposal would prevent me from ever holding left seat on a widebody that isn't even CAL's metal. This speaks VOLUMES to the career expectation aspect and I'm sure our UAL counsel will bring this up.

If you believe NO windfalls should occur then how do you address the 1500 '05-'08 hires at CAL that are predominantly 10-25 years younger then all of the JR UAL FO's?

No matter where these 1500 CAL pilots are slotted in the SLI, they will, for the last 15-20 years of their career, enjoy a HUGE opportunity to fly many more and larger aircraft in a much larger network than they would have otherwise and with faster advancement. That in and of itself is a "windfall" that nobody can deny them. This is not to begrudge them. I would think being 25-40 yrs old at UAL now is a most enviable position, no matter where they wind up on the list.

If Jr UAL pilots (furloughees included) are ratioed in with them, then at worse, their advancement may slow down some but will NEVER be eliminated. It might along the lines of it hurts a bit now and get something even better in the future. Not true for the converse, of course.

One has to step away from the lens of this year or next and look 10-25 years down the road for a reasonable solution for everybody.

Dude,

Chill.

The list presented by CAL is so far from reality it's laughable. It was a legal tactic, and it remains to be seen how effective it was.

Are you angry at the proposal and looking for every CAL pilot on the board to say we're sorry. If so then what you want just isn't possible. For what it's worth I think the final decision will validate evry point you believe today. Namely, CAL career expectations were not better than ours, and CAL's fleet was dominated by smaller planes than ours, and on average we had more time turning the wheel than them.