Important to keep in mind
04-25-2013, 06:23 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Position: Somewhere in a hollowed out hole...yet with broadband
Posts: 115
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
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
04-25-2013, 10:47 AM
#2
Peace Love Understanding
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
Originally Posted by Gupboy
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
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
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.
04-25-2013, 11:20 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 281
Originally Posted by LAX Pilot
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.
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.
04-25-2013, 11:35 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 168
Originally Posted by LAX Pilot
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.
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.
04-25-2013, 12:25 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
Too bad its not negotiations! One misguided soul does not make a quorum. 
04-25-2013, 12:51 PM
#6
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Originally Posted by oldmako
Too bad its not negotiations! One misguided soul does not make a quorum.
Originally Posted by Scott Stoops
This is not a negotiation - it is an arbitration. While there might be "middle ground" as a solution, starting at an extreme does not enhance the final outcome. Personally, if I were a Cal pilot, I'd be extremely disappointed in the negotiating committee's position.
It's not a Negotiation, but apparently there's a "Negotiating Committee"???
Well my good-man "James", does 1-1/2 make quorum??
04-25-2013, 12:54 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
Originally Posted by SoCalGuy
Just want to get this straight.....
It's not a Negotiation, but apparently there's a "Negotiating Committee"???
Well my good-man "James", does 1-1/2 make quorum??
It's not a Negotiation, but apparently there's a "Negotiating Committee"???
Well my good-man "James", does 1-1/2 make quorum??
04-25-2013, 01:27 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Position: Somewhere in a hollowed out hole...yet with broadband
Posts: 115
Originally Posted by LAX Pilot
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.
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.
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.
04-25-2013, 01:42 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: Retired
Posts: 230
Originally Posted by LAX Pilot
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.
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.
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!
04-25-2013, 02:23 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
Originally Posted by tailwheel48
Blah blah blah!
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.......... !
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.......... !
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!
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?
Last edited by oldmako; 04-25-2013 at 02:37 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
