Important to keep in mind
 

Reference the bold face....


SENIORITY LIST INTEGRATION UPDATE - ISL PROPOSAL
As previously communicated to you, your CAL MEC Merger Committee spent this past week presenting its SLI case to the arbitration panel. Yesterday, we provided our integrated seniority list proposal to the arbitration panel as the final portion of our SLI case in chief. Please keep in mind that this is a proposal and that ultimately the panel of three neutral arbitrators will render a decision integrating the two seniority lists. The proposal is attached, or you may also navigate to CAL Pilots > Home > Merger Committee > SLI Updates.

The UAL Merger Committee will present its case in chief May 11-15 in Washington D.C. There are additional hearings scheduled for June for rebuttal presentations and possibly closing arguments. The case will be submitted to the arbitration board when both sides send in their post-hearing briefs on July 25. We anticipate that the arbitrators will then want to consider the evidence and arguments, deliberate and probably run some additional merged lists before issuing their final and binding decision.

Capt. Jim Brucia
CAL MEC Merger Committee

We are all smart enough here to figure out what the CAL committee was trying to accomplish. Instead of being realistic they "shot for the moon" trying to set a far argument to grab as much seniority as they could. Instead of trying to present a reasonable list, they just went 1 for 1, ignoring everything else.

The list was insulting, immature, and not done in good faith.

Not only is their proposal not likely to even be considered by the panel, it has fostered a sense of anger from the UAL side, as can be witnessed on this forum.

Why? Yet to be seen of course, but I am sure many CAL folks will not be happy with the forth coming UAL proposal ... and let's get one thing clear, there will not be any ill-forgotten gains or "grabs" ... This is a binding arbitration, and 3 neutrals will sort out fact from fiction, and value the equities presented and "award" a list ... Really, it's well well beyond time that folks like you, sir, stop telling the pilots of the "nice little airline" to shut up and color.

Seems like the UAL furloughee I'm flying with seems to be ok with it! He says he understands the art of negotiations. Wow! what a novel concept!

Too bad its not negotiations! One misguided soul does not make a quorum. ;)

Just want to get this straight.....

It's not a Negotiation, but apparently there's a "Negotiating Committee"???:rolleyes:

Well my good-man "James", does 1-1/2 make quorum??

It's a 'Merger Committee'. But you already knew that...

Once again LAX with respect...
Anger over what? It's just a proposal. As sure as most of you are about your place in the SLI, why would it even affect you? Some of you are getting pretty worked up for a group so sure of their career expectations, longevity, and status/category. Is their an underlying sense of uncertainty? Because the reaction indicates there is.

The reality is the merger policy purposely gives immense latitude to the arbitrators because of the potential for uniqueness in a merger. (such as ours) Why do you think the arbitration is binding? Because that "merger policy" could be torn apart by a 1st year law student with a 2.0 GPA if it wasn't.

I also think the reality is we are all smart enough to realize this could end up different than you expect it to. The question is how will we all handle ourselves if it does? The high road and be a professional and do your job, or be a miserable pita for the rest of your career. I know which road I will take.

Thank god this scenario isn't being governed by the RLA. There's no "good faith" required. It's about both sides presenting a case for themselves. You don't think the CAL proposal is fair and equitable.We GET it. That's why 3 neutral's will make the ultimate decision.



Let your side present it's case....then let the arbitrators do their work.

Blah blah blah!

Save your outrage! I'd wager that the CAL side of the house will be as outraged by the UAL sides proposal.

All I've heard here the last few months is a sense of entitlement that is hardly justified by the facts. UAL was a dying airline, with an ancient fleet, bloated staffing, lousy morale, and a terrible reputation.

But, as others have said here, at the end of the day, the three neutrals will separate fact from fiction and we'll get to a list, which likely nobody is going to like!

This message brought to you by Bagdad Bob!

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...auQzPOr1ykWU5A

Keep repeating all that over and over and you might get a few more folks to believe it! Just like WMD! For someone who refers to facts, your grip of them seems tenuous at best.

Frats!:D

You are correct about the morale. Our former CEO said, "Your morale is not my problem". Can you imagine Steve Jobs or Henry Ford saying that?

I clearly mistyped. The committees themselves even call themselves merger committees. After 3 years of watching "negotiating" committees, it sort of rolled off the fingers. Regardless, the arbitrators can take all, some or none of each sides proposal. Not much of a negotiation. More like a litigation, frankly. I still believe that taking an extreme position does nothing to enhance, and likely detracts from the outcome. Guess we'll see!

Scott

So, let's recap . . .

UAL pilots start out excited to be a part of a merger that gets rid of our horrible anti-labor management, and when discussions open on a JCBA as outlined by the new ALPA merger policy the first public salvo comes from CAL explaining how great their company is and how UAL has to come up to their level. First the CAL MEC forces pay banding in a blatant attempt to influence the ISL process then the CAL MEC forces payment for profit sharing which is later shown in legal decisions to be a direct violation of their CBA and the TPA, and the award to UAL pilots is pending. Next the CAL MEC delays the JCBA for 2 years and we lose tens of thousands of dollars each and when the UAL Chairman says enough and asks for a strike vote the obstructionist JP starts out with a resounding no until pressure from national forces his hand. Then the SLI discussion comes up and the CAL MEC pins it's hopes on the panel going outside ALPA policy and building a list based on the perceived career expectations and W2s whilst ignoring all previous precedent and the current rules.

After all that UAL guys get angry and ask for any sane CAL pilot to simply acknowledge that maybe just maybe it's a little "over the top", but the response of every CAL pilot on APC is we are hysterical and stuck on status and category.

Never ever ever anywhere in the early posts on this forum did I ever see a UAL pilot tell a CAL pilot to go back "to their coloring books." Never ever did I see a UAL pilot early on this forum try to tell a CAL pilot that their company was inferior. All anyone ever wanted at UAL was to follow the rules as laid out by ALPA policy. That policy favors UAL because we have more WBs and are older on average. Putting us down like somehow we as a pilot group are responsible for 9/11, SARs, and somehow you wouldn't have gone for Contract 2000 when we set the bar to the highest level ever seen for pilots is blatant back stabbing of your fellow pilot.

You know what . . . that sucks 'cuz you guys are the ones creating disharmony. I guarantee that every single UAL pilot went into this merger with the highest of hopes, and all anyone wanted was "a fair shake".

Tell me what it is you guys think is fair about the CAL proposal. Tell me what you think is fair about all the benefits accruing to the CAL side for the last 3 years while we sit with our hands out begging for a Captain bid. You have had the best of all worlds and you have the audacity to claim that we are a bunch of whining sissies.

I want more than anything to hold my head above the fray here on APC because to often I have allowed myself to be dragged down by emotion, but I am genuinely sick and tired of the CAL opinions expressed on this forum and I genuinely hope above all hope that the ISL comes down stovepiped status and category so I can come back on here and rub it in your faces, but I guess that will have to wait 'til September and there is still the chance that I could have my face rubbed in it, but boy I really doubt it . . . do you?

I stopped reading after the first paragraph. Seriously guys like you need to move back from this ISL or clearly your personal lives will suffer.

Too bad you didn't read it, he does a good job of explaining my frustration. Sunvox started posting a completely reasonable, unemotional, and collaborativemessage - now y'all even gotten under his skin. Good job.

No, if the CAL ISL were to be implemented, my personal life would suffer. Absent a merger, I retire in the top 10 % of the seniority list. If the CAL SLI were to be implemented, I retire around 45%. My story is not unique .. there's about 3000 of us over here that are similarly impacted by the proposed CAL SLI. Do you have ANY idea of the irreparable harm that would do to MY career and retirement while greatly ENHANCING the careers of the junior CAL pilots?

Once again, the fact that CAL guys can somehow rationalize this is beyond me. I certainly don't wish the same level of career destruction on them. Looking at the proposed CAL SLI, the one word that comes to mind is, "sociopath". Take everything I can at the expense of others, get an incredible windfall at the expense of others. Kinda like the people that cross a picket line, in my mind .. step on whoever to get what they have.

Not looking for sympathy, but understand why soooo many United pilots feel betrayed by their supposed CAL "brethren" that want to destroy 16 years of our sweat equity.

We don't have a final list....no ones been impacted. How about waiting for your side to put on their case, and then let the arbitrators decide what's fair? Isn't that the way this thing works??

So let's see, you are the L-CAL captain asking the furloughed L-UAL F/O what he or she thinks of the L-CAL seniority proposal? What the &%$^ do you think they will say? They're stuck flying with you for the duration of the trip, it's either go off on you or say what they said to get through the flight with a clearly clueless captain.

Dan

(well maybe your the lead Flight Attendant, I didn't think of that possibility)

I thought it , but you said it LOL.

Fair enough .. you seem somewhat reasonable .. I'll make you a deal and a promise .. If my MEC SLI attempts to SO@@#ze you the way the CAL proposal strives to do to me and my career, I'll admit it and say its way overreaching.

Anything other than what CAL proposed is going to be treated this way as retribution. You should have seen enough posts now to see this.

You would think, but we made that point at the beginning of the 50+ page thread. Since then we have watched the 5% pompous arse rule on both sides degenerate this place with primal ludicrus mud slinging that would make Tony Soprano blush.

One thing for sure, if the Cal and UAL positions were reversed you would see the same thing from the UAL merger committee. Hey UAl guys too bad you don't like the proposal... Thats all it is..... Do you honestly think the CAl guys would like yours'? Fair? I'm letting the arbitrators decide... What ever the outcome you can be assured the UAL side will, and I mean will file a law suit.....I don't think they will ever be happy....

As I have said before, it will be interesting to see what kind of monkey wrench your MEC will throw into this process to delay, delay, delay....like with pay banding and profit sharing. He11, without the "Heppner Plan", I believe we would still be negotiating a contract.
You'll find out what the UAL SLI proposal is on the 15th of April. I believe you will be surprised at how middle of the road it is. Meaning not WAAAY out in left field like yours. At least the proposal will not staple 37% of the CAL list. :rolleyes:

Sled

Notwithstanding several claims by CAL pilots on this very forum to file a suit if they feel the outcome is adverse, right???

IMHO this entire process, including a panel of three arbitrators, is designed at the core to be "suit proof" and whatever the arbitrators hand down will be the final word regardless of the keyboard warriors.

Nailed it.....

Take a deep breath, let's see what the L-UAL Merger Committee proposes...
Both sides have a "club of 12 angry men" that represent 75% of what is posted on this forum. They do not represent anyone but themselves...

In my opinion, based on my expectations for what the outcome will be, I bet I feel every bit as torqued when I see the UAL proposal. BUT, I will also realize that neither side awards the list. Three neutral arbitrators will do that. I think your just hardening your artery walls by looking at it any other way.

A safe and blessed weekend to everyone.

Nice sentiment and many thanks! But at the James Ranch, we're planning on getting likkered up and doing stupid stuff with Mohair Mommas, fireworks and power tools. Its a big country, to each their own!

:D

Yo James..

Is an invite required or can I crash as long as I bring a couple 45's of Mad Dog?

Hoss,

Be careful what you wish for. After a night out with the Godfather, you might need some charcoal tablets the next morning. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

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.