You're not the first CAL pilot to refer to a lack of work rules in the CAL CBA and make it sound like you're bragging.

Overstaffed compared to CAL...easily rebutted w exhibits of various shots of the CAL reserve pool showing they're below min reserve all the time. Everyone seems overstaffed if your company believes in staffing below min requirements and them relying on a special batch of SM/VJM players.

Or...

747/777/767 = THREE or FOUR pilots

737 = TWO pilots

See how easy the math is??? (Hint: there will be a great breakdown of this starting May 11th.)

Besides, I would consider recent sUAL pilot recalls an additional sure sign of overstaffing considering sUAL's historic penchant for wasting money on overstaffing. :rolleyes:

Again, conjecture ... at MAD, fleet totals were within 10 airframes, and block hours flown were about the same, with CAL flying a higher percentage of international block hours. You did have more pilots, yes. Why? CAL MC thought that was due to overstaffing and less overall productivity.

I see a common theme amongst so many L-UAL folks .... UAL was bigger, better, and more bad ass than L-CAL ... all perception.

Not accurate. Airlines are staffed based on the type of flying they perform, not type of aircraft. A 777 that flies domestic routes will staff the same as an a320. A 757 that flies international flights with an iro will staff more pilots than a domestic 777.

Thank you for making the LUAL point. It is all about the type flying. LUAL was a "blue water" airline. Long haul over large streches of ocean to distant international locations. LCAL was primarily a "brown water" airline. Lots of short leg flying over small (er) expanses of ocean. Now before you go ape...yes LCAL did some true long haul. Just not to the level of LUAL. Thus the difference in staffing model. Couple that with LCAL's abysmal work rules and its easy math.

Did you read what you wrote before you hit enter ? If I was UAL counsel, I'd put you on the stand to repeat that again and again under oath. Your statement just strengthens the UAL argument. You should lay off the intoxicants before posting on the internet. They don't make you any smarter.

I'm not trying to further anyone's case, I'm simply pointing out that staffing follows the type of flying not the aircraft. Whether is be blue or brown water (whatever that means), if it requires additional pilots, it is regardless of the type of aircraft.

Staffing is more than a function of where a plane flies. Some metrics are: type of A/C, cost of pilots (contract & PBS), block hours, short and long-term business forecast and outside cost drivers like file and etc...

Btw...Howard is changing people in flight ops and you will see this announcement soon. Current staffing manager is on his way out.

Exactly. There is zero mystery why UAL's staffing requires an extra 1000 FOs for a similar fleet size.

Additionally, and based on the seniority lists at both airlines, widebody FO jobs must be desirable based on the seniority range of the FOs bidding it.

This is also inaccurate.

Really???? At the danger of math in public.....

I just looked at CAL system bid 14-02.

777 FO EWR: 93.9% (324/345) of the FOs can hold 737 CA EWR.....but didn't bid it.

777 FO IAH: 94.7% (90/95) of the FOs can hold 737 CA IAH.....but didn't bid it.

Of course on the 787 in IAH, 67% (102/152) of the FOs can hold 737 CA IAH. That's only 2/3 so you got me there. :D

Just a question from an outsider...
 

... and of course feel free to ignore it. If payscales were purely based on years of service, would that make these mergers go easier? DOH could theoretically be given for bidding purposes, but it really wouldn't matter because if you have been an airline pilot for 20 years, whether you be flying 737 or 777 your pay would be the same. I think the surprise that everyone would see is that some of the narrowbody flying (at DAL it would be the ATL 737) would be unbelievably senior. Caribbean turns and home every night vs 12 day multiple ocean crossings.... Of course one really big difference between us and you is that you have a billion super premium widebodies, and we have a few... but the underlying premise is still sound...

Just wondering what ya'll thought about the idea.

So what you are saying is that 100% of 737 ca can hold 777 FO, but choose not to? Thanks for clearing that up.

And best of luck to YOU with yours! Back at ya bro....

Sure thing. That's to be expected, right?? Shouldn't CA go senior to FO????

Seems you forget...ual bought cal, with cash...short-term memory issue it appears.

And from what I've seen, first hand mind you for 16 months in the right seat of a GUPPY...Ual guys would MUCH rather not be integrating with your hodgepodge group of airline misfits. 5 airlines, 3 fighters, and experience with the pilot training system of the worlds largest defense acquisition program; I can assure this is the case.

I've NEVER flown with a more unprofessional, less standardized, and inexplicably weak pilot group in 20 years of professional aviation. Maybe this is only an issue with the GUPPY fleet, but its still an issue no less..

Just my 2 cents, but gee...what the hell do I know.

Cheers,
Horhay

I see that at both airlines. I have jumpseated on UAL and CAL almost equal amounts and I can say it is 50/50 as far as having pilots that should and should not belong in the cockpit.

Unfortunately, the only bad part of ALPA is when they don't let the company fire the misfits.


I don't remember UAL buying CAL. If I remember right, it was an equal merger.

Sounds more like having a far larger percentage of widebodies and a modicum of work rules the pilots were willing to adhere to (insert CAL "get it done for mgmt cause I'm scared of being called in front of my CP" syndrome here)...maybe we should simply adopt the STELLAR CAL manpower model of understaffing by 10%, destroying the reserves, whoring out line holders, shutting down the schoolhouse in the summer, disallowing ANY trades, and giving the pilots 12 days off per month...wow coach, sign EVERYBODY up!

In case you don't know, which apparently you don't (reference your post); average narrow body manning is roughly 11 dudes/jet vice a widebody which is closer to 16...hence, another glaring gap in an otherwise lackluster analysis on your part.

Cheers,
Horhay

I agree 100%. I wish it was just seat and longevity pay, not equipment.

Wow......the bar just got lower!

I cannot believe you just opened that door. Talk about classless and clueless. :confused:

Yeah, but it is still the truth. You can't argue with the truth, no matter how much you wish it wasn't.

Cite the numbers, dates, and causality....if you wanna take a jump into the muck...have the guts to cite specificity. Otherwise; it was simply an overstep on your part, going to a truly lowly place at the expense of those who died, for no other purpose than to assuage your ego to make a relatively meaningless point.

Such historical data does nothing to negate the fact that CAL has SERIOUS and glaring gaps in standardization and professional conduct in the cockpit. It's quite true...how many airlines do YOU have first-hand of (procedures an best practices) in your professional career to compare and contrast CAL's to? Please do tell...

Your "analysis" fails to mention that UAL is and always has been a much larger and more prolific global player in the world's air transport market than its CAL counterpart...further undermining any legitimacy of your somewhat spurious correlation which you're attempting to achieve...

Just sayin'...

Frats,
Horhay

All true. My view was a bit too simplistic. What I'm getting at is that stating that a wb staffs more than a nb is not always true.

According to one of the CAL merger committee members on another forum, that wasn't his opinion.

He talked about having a "chill lifestyle flying only 10 days a month" and living "the good life" as a widebody FO. In regards to flying 18 days a month as a 737 Captain he remarked "who'd want to do that"

But I'm SURE he has changed his position on that now.

DMC - what is your background and experience? Are you CAL or UAL? For background, I've got 4 years with U on the Guppy, 3 in the Bus, and 15 months with CAL on the turbo-Guppy(NG). From your post, you imply (per the "jumpseated on both...") that you've not actively flown at either airline, is that the case? While I appreciate your jumpseating observations, it's a far different experience than spending 3-4 days working with a pilot directly. If you are/were a CAL or UAL crew, I apologize for the omission.

Agreed-both companies have their toads, some of whom are deleriously poor pilots, many of whom are incapable (or prevented by management) of EVER upgrading; I can assure you that the level of competence, standardization, and professionalism is FAR higher at U than C. Granted, it's only a small snap-shot of one equipment type at one base...I do though believe this holds true in the bigger scheme as well.

The "merger of equals" tripe was simply a weak attempt by management to set the employee's expectations to avoid divisiveness commonly found in integrating disparate working groups. Reference Jeff's often-used, and completely meaningless use of the "co-worker" term. MBA-101 attempt to bring oneself to the "level" of the laboror (read labor groups) so as to engender team cohesion and inspire desired behavior for the sake of bolstering productivity metrics.

UAL purchased CAL with cash to avert a merger approval vote and avoid the failed result of the US air debacle in 2000.

Cheers,
Horhay

We have a few domestic id's on the 777, but rarely do we fly domestic. The only unaugmented flying I ever do is HNL or GUM. Last domestic id I flew was sometime last year. On 90% of my flights I have a bunkie with enough seniority to hold 320 or 767 Capt. Just choosing the better lifestyle. And FYI, the 777's I fly are all well equipped with GPS, IRS, CPDLC, Satcom etc.

SFO 777 CA.

The point is that he/she can hold BOTH, and has a choice! That fact should not change due to the merger! So now look at that choice and see why putting a furlough in front of that person changes their life. What choice does a furlough have? Certainly not the same as an active pilot...

Thanks auzcap,

I truly don't know ual's entire pre merger route system and I understand that you have great 777/747 routes. No dispute there. I also think that most of the ual pilots don't truly understand the cal pre merger system routes and operations. Cal flew a ton of augmented routes to overseas destinations but much of it was in nb aircraft.

By the way, I understand that you have GPS and satcom, but what about an espresso maker? Our 777's have them. That's got to be worth a couple of hundred seniority numbers!

How did you come to this conclusion? In all of the financial reports I have read, it was a straight stock transaction, with old CAL stock holders recieving a slight premimum compared to old UAL stock holders. The new holding company, UCH, was comprised of directors appointed in equal numbers by the old corportations/holding companies.

Indeed.

Particularly considering the last pilot related hull loss/fatality at UAL was in 1978(?) with the fuel incident in the DC-8.

I'm thinking people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...h_1210284c.jpg

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2044/1...1bb_z.jpg?zz=1

More pilot bases does NOT a bigger airline make. It just means you have more bases.

Each base had multiple equipment types. Each type required its own reserve pilots.

I will agree that CAL staffing model sucks. You are lucky that CAL didn't have the work rules UAL had, or CAL would have more pilots.

Yeah...but are they ETOPS ?

:-)

Oops, sorry, I stand corrected. It wasn't a "cash" deal, you're right...it was a stock transaction.

United acquired CAL by issuing 1.05 U shares for each CAL share...it was more simply an acquisition and NOT a cash purchase per se...therefore; United acquired Continental in this manner...

We good?

Cheers,
Horhay

No we are so awesome the FAA allows us to fly twin engine over water in non ETOPS airplanes.;)

"Choice" is not in ALPA merger policy. Those pilots have active longevity, and they WILL get credit for it.

Why are you so anxious to take away their active time and not count it when the policy states it is a required factor.

The immaturity by some on this forum is unbelievable. This thread was started to remind everybody to calm down and let the SLI process run its course. It has deteriorated in to sheer idiocy. I'm sorry I started the thread. So much for civil professional discourse.

My guess is that the active longevity will account for something, in the status and category of furloughed. Ask your merger committee, both committees are well aware of that!

You are correct that choice is not in ALPA merger policy, but take the blinders off. Define career expectations... Do you know what it means? Or do you think it only means widebody? It has way more latitude than you think, read past awards, and see what was considered part of expectations. You could look at everything as black and white, and with blinders on, but looking at this with an open mind and realizing the latitude that the arbitrators have, we will all be just a bit less disappointed when the list is published. You are holding on to active longevity, there are many other factors, and they WILL be credited to both sides. I would bet anything on that!

+1. I can't believe a doctor clears some of these guys to fly airplanes for a living every year.

Immaturity by some?

Which APC person posted racist remarks to make their case? Which APC member lied to make their case? Which APC member started talking about killing passengers?

UAL pilots are on here trying to argue facts based on 10-k's and actual ALPA policy and they are running into pilots bent on slandering the profession and arguing that UAL was a dinosaur.

Some UAL pilots may succumb to emotion now and again but so far I have yet to see a UAL pilot debase themselves with racisism, lying, or vulgar references to passenger deaths.