Sunvox

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

Sunvox

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

intrepidcv11

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.

Pilotbiffster

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.

boxer6

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.

Sunvox

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.

Sunvox

So simple yet so unacceptable to the CAL community on APC.

Nice post.

Joe

LAX Pilot

Yes, I understand stovepiping. But we can all agree that 737 FO would be at the bottom and 747 Capt at the top. But what about 747 FO? You can't just stovepipe them below 737 Capt. Its not that clear. Especially when you compare pay to days worked. 747 FO is now a better job, and guess what? More 747 FOs in the senior ranks than A-320 Captains.....

CleCapt

To use the LUAL argument

Age is not directly listed in ALPA merger policy

If you try to relate age to longevity then you are going beyond the current ALPA merger policy and open the doors to the LCAL argument that the policy states "not limited to" and the arbitrators can decide what is fair after considering the listed items.

Can't have it both ways.

Sonny Crockett

So what is your DOH? Still cannot answer the question?

"
Ummm.....huh....ohh.....first to fly 707......we have bigger engines....um........ohhhh....ummm......what was the question?"