Originally Posted by boxer6 (Post 1397630)

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.

Originally Posted by Sunvox (Post 1397611)

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 ;)

Originally Posted by Sunvox (Post 1397637)

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

Nice post.

Joe

Originally Posted by Olecal (Post 1397520)

Huh? I was not hired in 87! I never said the such! Wrong guy!

Originally Posted by Sunvox (Post 1397617)

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

Originally Posted by boxer6 (Post 1397630)

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.

Originally Posted by CleCapt (Post 1397644)

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.

Originally Posted by LAX Pilot (Post 1397653)

Boxer, you are wise beyond your years....

Which is why the CAL position never age progressed the list so that we could see where people fall out in 5,10,15 years, etc.

Even if all the 25-40 year old CAL pilots were stapled to the bottom, all but 5 UAL pilots would have retired and those pilots will still all be widebody Captains for more years than they would have without a merger.....

Originally Posted by Sunvox (Post 1397631)

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.

Originally Posted by CleCapt (Post 1397644)

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.