Today's LUAL SLI Presentation?
05-15-2013, 08:12 AM
#121
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Very impressive chart. For the purpose of the SLI everything before 2006 is simply nostalgia.
Originally Posted by Sunvox
And funny thing about those higher CAL pay rates. Doesn't look like they applied to the WB fleet, and darned if that isn't why I picked UAL. 
Last edited by APC225; 05-15-2013 at 08:52 AM.
05-15-2013, 08:17 AM
#122
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by Sunvox
First, the purpose of using longevity is to compare UAL pilot longevity to CAL longevity not to compare CAL to CAL and this can only work if longevity is calculated in the same manner. Any express time or prior carrier time included in the CAL longevity unfairly raises their longevity.
Second, if you take the Merger Policy to a lawyer (as I have) you will find that the words "considered" and "shall include" imply that longevity must be "used". It doesn't say anything about how much nor does it disallow "other" items to be considered, but longevity MUST BE part of the equation in some form or another even if it is only .001% part of the equation so therefore, ergo, QED the UAL committee needs to come up with an apples to apples longevity formula to be fair, and it IS unfair that the CAL MEC is not helping, but seems intent on arguing that it can't be done and is irrelevant when in fact it is one of only 3 items which are specifically mentioned in the ALPA Merger policy.
Second, if you take the Merger Policy to a lawyer (as I have) you will find that the words "considered" and "shall include" imply that longevity must be "used". It doesn't say anything about how much nor does it disallow "other" items to be considered, but longevity MUST BE part of the equation in some form or another even if it is only .001% part of the equation so therefore, ergo, QED the UAL committee needs to come up with an apples to apples longevity formula to be fair, and it IS unfair that the CAL MEC is not helping, but seems intent on arguing that it can't be done and is irrelevant when in fact it is one of only 3 items which are specifically mentioned in the ALPA Merger policy.
CAL MEC is considering the list as it is at CAL. You may not like/agree with how the list came about, but again, we didn't ask UAL how to build the list in the 90's.
As far as your lawyer and legal definitions. I think the language ( English ) speaks for itself. I don't run off to a lawyer with the merger policy in hand at $500 an hour asking for explanations. Maybe you have a lawyer friend you asked about this, and of course he will give you the answer you want.
The CAL list is a NUMERICAL list. Numbers on a list that will not be reordered.
I don't see punishing the CAL pilots for either how the list was constructed, or for the the actions of the respective MEC's that some ( on both sides ) feel were less than the whole story.
Each side is "bending" the truth. Both sides have been caught with inaccuracies. Don't for 1 second believe that the UAL side is going to provide a list that is "FAIR" in the eyes of LCAL pilots.
I think we are all being drug down to a new low, and even after the list is put together it will take a LONG time before for each group to forget where they came from and start working TOGETHER.
05-15-2013, 08:43 AM
#123
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by horrido27
Actually, he did bust them. A few times. And like you said, is 6 or 7 thousand dollars the same as lying about a Seniority List?
But, that list is no different than the list that we had when I was hired in 07.
What is "different" is the fact that CAL had some sort of flowback agreements with CalEx. Something that your MC can't come to terms with.
Even one of your own pilots, (FO) KK mentioned how he was hired at BA back in 90, but had he taken his position at CAL in 97, he would have been on 7th yr Longevity. And that at some point, his paychecks said Continental Airlines...
What is worse is that, out of 4700 pilots on the list when this merger went down, you believe that "...lying about a couple thousand DOHs and furloughs?" is true?!
So you actually believe that there are 2000 pilots, out of 4700.. that were furloughed at some point (and don't show it) or have wrong DOH's?!
Wow.
Motch
But, that list is no different than the list that we had when I was hired in 07.
What is "different" is the fact that CAL had some sort of flowback agreements with CalEx. Something that your MC can't come to terms with.
Even one of your own pilots, (FO) KK mentioned how he was hired at BA back in 90, but had he taken his position at CAL in 97, he would have been on 7th yr Longevity. And that at some point, his paychecks said Continental Airlines...
What is worse is that, out of 4700 pilots on the list when this merger went down, you believe that "...lying about a couple thousand DOHs and furloughs?" is true?!
So you actually believe that there are 2000 pilots, out of 4700.. that were furloughed at some point (and don't show it) or have wrong DOH's?!
Wow.
Motch
And yes, I am saying there is a black and white difference between a disagreement on how pilot cost per hour is calculated and CAL Merger Committee counting express time of any kind as mainline longevity credit. WOW, unbelievable you try to justify this horsecrap.
Glad my seniority hopes aren't being driven by lies. The ends don't justify the means for many of us.
Last edited by ChrisJT6; 05-15-2013 at 08:59 AM.
05-15-2013, 08:59 AM
#124
Not retiring avatar
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Position: 777 CAP
Posts: 768
To be clear what the UAL committee is disputing you need to read the memorandum posted on the website. Here is a relevant excerpt:
Before setting out the facts concerning the relationship between Continental and its
numerous regional partners as they relate to the portions of the CAL seniority list that are in
dispute and the “law” on this issue, we want to make clear what is and is not in dispute in this
case. First, the UAL Committee is numerous regional partners as they relate to the portions of the CAL seniority list that are in
dispute and the “law” on this issue, we want to make clear what is and is not in dispute in this
not asking the Board to change any pilot’s pre-merger
ordering on the CAL list, to diminish any pilot’s relative seniority or bidding power vis-a-vis any other CAL pilot on the CAL list, or to alter any CAL pilot’s standing on the ISL relative to otherCAL pilots in their own pre-merger group. In other words, nothing in the UAL Committee’s view
of longevity will affect the pre-merger position of any pilot of either company relative to his or
her pre-merger colleagues.
Second, the CAL pilots whose longevity is at issue comprise less than a quarter of the
CAL list. The UAL Committee does not dispute: i) the dates of hire and related longevity of
pilots on the CAL list who were integrated in the four arbitration proceedings ending with the
1991 Ross Award and other pilots in the list with seniority numbers ranging from 1-1641 on the
CAL Certified Seniority List, Jt. Ex. E.1; ii) the dates of hire of off-the-street CAL hires from the 1988 – 2003 period (including the Eastern Airlines hires in 1997); or iii) the dates of hire and related longevity of any of CAL’s post-2004 hires (in the range from 3294-4807).
her pre-merger colleagues.
Second, the CAL pilots whose longevity is at issue comprise less than a quarter of the
CAL list. The UAL Committee does not dispute: i) the dates of hire and related longevity of
pilots on the CAL list who were integrated in the four arbitration proceedings ending with the
1991 Ross Award and other pilots in the list with seniority numbers ranging from 1-1641 on the
CAL Certified Seniority List, Jt. Ex. E.1; ii) the dates of hire of off-the-street CAL hires from the 1988 – 2003 period (including the Eastern Airlines hires in 1997); or iii) the dates of hire and related longevity of any of CAL’s post-2004 hires (in the range from 3294-4807).
The list to be presented today will include longevity as a factor. So by necessity they have to establish how they arrived at the longevity numbers.
05-15-2013, 09:49 AM
#126
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 621
Originally Posted by Coto Pilot
The new agreement does not state "going forward" and in fact implies both going forward and retroactively. LOA 25 limits the retroactive portion to a group of pilots that were carved out.
05-15-2013, 11:53 AM
#128
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 645
Originally Posted by CALFO
Agreed. I never stated that it said "going forward", merely that, according to the JCBA, longevity will accrue for furloughed pilots, going forward.
I don't have the contract in front of me, but I believe the languages says that furloughed pilots accrue longevity.
05-15-2013, 12:25 PM
#129
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 419
UALs list is up and in the strange twilight zone we live in....it looks a lot like relative seniority unlike the rediculous list CAL proposed. Bottom group gets a small boost at CAL and UAL furloughees get a small drop relative respective lists.
The banter should be interesting.
The banter should be interesting.
05-15-2013, 12:30 PM
#130
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 621
Originally Posted by Coto Pilot
I don't have the contract in front of me, but I believe the languages says that furloughed pilots accrue longevity.
I think I'm going to stop arguing this point because I'm not sure that I really know the ins and outs of the program (I was not a part of it)
What I will say is that this was one of the greatest mainline job protection programs ever enacted. It really is a shame that we let it go. Had L-UAL had such a program, most of it's pilots were have immediately flowed down to Captain positions on the Express planes.
I have asked why we can't get such a program anymore and the answers (if we are to believe) have to do with the fact that ExpressJet is now a separate entity from CAL (or now UAL).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
