Sled, good point on we will find out, but if you read the UA opening statement, especially the last few pages and understand their concept, it's a staple and flip the seniority job in the offering. It is too place furloughed pilots at UA ahead of CAL active pilots. Did not say intermingle with both pilot groups junior list, because of course all involuntary furloughed UA pilots have to be junior to the most current UA pilot. Effectively, swap positions with CAL junior pilots , intermingle with furloughed pilots and place them in the furlough risk window, when many are currently outside that window at CAL. If so what happens to the 97-99 hires ( bottom of UA active list)..they move up significantly in seniority. Now, here's the kicker. Your Merger committee is suppose to to that in these proceedings. If they said, we will place UA furloughed behind any active pilot, you guys would go crazy, because perhaps your committe is not representing all YOUR pilots. I would agree. Their allegiance is not to me or any other CALmpilot wrt to fair and equiteable seniority list, but the UA pilots...that's why the arbitrators will see through both sides maneuvering and render a fair and equitable list.

1) Furloughs ahead of active pilots is based on their longevity and career expectations. There is no ALPA merger policy about furlough risk prevention in the future. Both sides had furloughees at the time of the merger and CAL proposed placing their furloughees WELL ahead of active pilots, some with 12 years of active flying time at United. Its obviously not unheard of then to have that, since they were recommending it be done.

2) When you say 97-99 hires are going to "move up significantly" in seniority, they are actually going to move downward because of CAL pilots placed ahead of them. Their relative position is most certainly to improve. This is because of their longevity, career expectations, and status and category of the airplanes their side brought to the merger.

They aren't really "moving up". They are losing a few thousand numbers. Its not an apples to apples comparison obviously.

I do agree that the overall list will likely be very reasonable, and nothing like what CAL proposed. It will either be what UAL proposes, or something very close to it.

I expect my relative seniority to improve just to maintain my current career expectation. I think its apparent that all the other UAL people posting their "what would happen" if the CAL proposal was implemented (like retiring #4000 instead of #500. etc). Especially when the most junior Captains on each side at the time of the merger were placed about 3,000 seniority numbers apart from each other on the proposed combined list.

So much for "Captains should be merged with Captains".

Sounds like my first month on the line back in '96... definitely not treating my body like that no more. The dude abides.

I agree.

I will admit, however, that I'm amazed that BOTH sides are in apparent agreement that it's OK to place furloughed pilots ahead of "active" pilots.

Prior to the hearings I presumed this would be the "3rd rail" that the CAL committee would never touch (considering the status of the furloughed CAL pilots on May 17, 2010) but the CAL proposal to place them above '97 UAL widebody first officers, who have never been furloughed, is IMHO either a Hail Mary or Pandora's box. Personally, I'm a big fan of the unintended consequences. ;)

C'mon Hoss! Mad Dogs are always welcome as is The Bull and The Colt.

Me too, on the last. Unintended consequences, although to be honest, it has already happened in an official ALPA merger award post the policy change (Pinnacle/Mesaba/Colgan). I was just surprised to see the CAL merger committee offer it up as a solution.

Scott

Very different integration! Furlough were mixed in with turboprop FO's from Colgan. We will see what happens in aug/sept, and we as professionals will live with it and move forward.

You are incorrect.

Placing furloughed guys at the bottom, many with many years of active service would be a major mistake and completely an unfair windfall under someone who is "active" with less years of longevity.

I am fully aware on the PNCL/Mesaba/Colgan and how it was done. I suggest your read your Merger Committee Chairman comments on the subject.

Talked to him about it extensively! And the dynamics are very different, especially with 3 carriers with different expectations and missions. It would be great if you were to look at things both ways. An active pilot would have their career stagnated as people come off the street in front of them. Also, it makes the active pilot more susceptible to furlough. Remember that furloughed is a status/category! I do realize that there will be credit for widebodies etc, but I'm not so sure that many, if any, involuntary furloughs will be put in front of active pilots. It's going to be a long uphill battle to look past the "Tale of two pilots" scenario in NS's testimony. The fact alone that you are staying on the CAL side instead of accepting recall is a very strengthening argument to career expectations alone at CAL...

Yes we will. Not really much any of us can do about it.