Important to keep in mind
04-26-2013, 05:00 PM
#41
Peace Love Understanding
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
Originally Posted by Olecal
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...
Nice try.
04-26-2013, 08:18 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Originally Posted by Olecal
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...
Sled
04-26-2013, 08:37 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 168
Originally Posted by LAX Pilot
No one is staying on the CAL side because they expect to do better for ISL. They are doing it because they either don't want to move, or are holding lines and want some predictability. Plus they want to see what they will be able to hold post ISL. Many of the furloughees were 777 FOs and many want to go back to that.
Nice try.
Nice try.
04-26-2013, 08:42 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 168
Originally Posted by jsled
....and the 147 Cal furloughees were placed ahead of active, never been furloughed Ual pilots on the CAL SLI proposal why? Can you splain that to me Olecal? Obviously, your Merger Committee is FINE with putting furloughees ahead of active pilots. I am glad to see it.
Sled
Sled
04-26-2013, 08:46 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Originally Posted by Olecal
His QOL is better at CAL, that is the bottom line!!! QOL has a lot to do with career expectations!
It's all good til you peel back the first layer.
04-26-2013, 09:12 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 239
Originally Posted by Olecal
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...
Keep in mind the average age of these temporarily stagnated folks you refer to are 10-20 years younger the UA junior group. The jr CAL group will have have the last 10-20 years of their career super senior and with multiple times the wide body positions that they would have had otherwise. Unless the jr UA folks are given longevity credit, the jr CAL group will be given, what could be arguably called, a double windfall.
04-26-2013, 11:04 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 168
Originally Posted by boxer6
Keep in mind the average age of these temporarily stagnated folks you refer to are 10-20 years younger the UA junior group. The jr CAL group will have have the last 10-20 years of their career super senior and with multiple times the wide body positions that they would have had otherwise. Unless the jr UA folks are given longevity credit, the jr CAL group will be given, what could be arguably called, a double windfall.
04-27-2013, 03:34 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
Originally Posted by Olecal
Age has nothing to do with it! So what your saying is, because you are younger, you have time! They didn't make the career decision for the folks at UAL. They chose a different path, and you feel they should be punished for that? See NS's testimony of 'A tale of two pilots". My mediator friend says that is a very difficult situation for the arbitrators to overlook, it's likely they won't!
This, however, will also not go overlooked,
Originally Posted by Sunvox
In the year 2033 (20 years from now), there will be 2272 pilots from today's list working at UAL. Of those pilots 1595 are CAL pilots and 677 are UAL pilots. Right now the combined company has roughly 2400 WB-CAP jobs. Right now CAL has 800 WB-CAL jobs. So right at the start the CAL junior pilots are guaranteed a WB-CAP job where before only 1/2 would have gotten there within 20 years. And, that is without regard to seniority, it's a simple fact of having 3 times the number of jobs as before the merger. Put another way if UAL stood alone those UAL pilots would all be 747 or 777 Captains and would have been for quite some time.
and I for one find it quite dramatic especially when combined with the mega-carrier argument. That argument says the facts of history have shown that UAL managements assumption that further industry consolidation was inevitable is now a fact of history and CAL's management plan to continue as a stand alone carrier was a failed plan. Seen in that light the CAL pilots had a greatly diminished future if any future at all if they had not merged with UAL.
We shall see whose argument the panel finds more compelling.
04-27-2013, 03:45 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
Originally Posted by Olecal
Age has nothing to do with it!
04-27-2013, 04:52 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 840
Originally Posted by Sunvox
This, however, will also not go overlooked,
and I for one find it quite dramatic especially when combined with the mega-carrier argument. That argument says the facts of history have shown that UAL managements assumption that further industry consolidation was inevitable is now a fact of history and CAL's management plan to continue as a stand alone carrier was a failed plan. Seen in that light the CAL pilots had a greatly diminished future if any future at all if they had not merged with UAL.
We shall see whose argument the panel finds more compelling.
and I for one find it quite dramatic especially when combined with the mega-carrier argument. That argument says the facts of history have shown that UAL managements assumption that further industry consolidation was inevitable is now a fact of history and CAL's management plan to continue as a stand alone carrier was a failed plan. Seen in that light the CAL pilots had a greatly diminished future if any future at all if they had not merged with UAL.
We shall see whose argument the panel finds more compelling.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
