How do you know what the arbitrators will or will not do? Just curious.

 

You have to remember that OLECAL and the others are being creative when they put their list together. For example, they don't look at the lists at the merger date, they want to use TODAY's list. (For them only) So they've got 500 pilots who are ALREADY ON THE UAL LIST and they put those pilots ON THE BOTTOM OF THEIR LIST.

So look at it this way. You are the LAST pilot at CAL. You are at 100% as of the merger date. Then you creatively call the pilots who are already United pilots and have been recalled but back to the CAL side as "junior to you". All of a sudden you are at 90% today somehow.

So the UAL list puts you back at last 100% which it should, and then you complain that you "lost" 10%.

Also, you conveniently count ALL CAL PILOTS on their list, but ONLY the UAL pilots who are active when you do your relative seniority calculation.

You also consider the CURRENT position of where certain CAL pilots are today, and not where things stood when the merger actually happened. So CAL pilots get longevity until TODAY, but UAL pilots we stop counting as of the merger date.

This is nothing more than guys counting time at CAL express and on furlough as "active pilot time"

The arbitrators are smarter and going to see through this.

 

Nobody does really.

If they go with the UAL presentation and proposal they have facts and a mathematical equation to back up their decision.

If they go with the CAL tirade and rants they have to somehow figure out how "Captains are to be merged with Captains" and that means CAL 737 Captains with UAL 747 Captains, then UAL Airbus Captains being placed in with CAL 737 FOs.

Not to mention the stapling of a couple thousand UAL pilots, many of which who were never furloughed behind CAL pilots on furlough....

 

Curious as to how the mathematical formula ended up placing a block of 500 UA pilots between 2 CAL pilots hired on the same day. Only missed fragging Pierce by 8 numbers.

 

Let me clarify this point with myself as an example. In May 2010, I had a relative seniority of 79%. That's among active pilots, of course. Every pilot in that 21% below me was still on the property.

The UAL proposal suggests that my relative would still be 79%, but it includes all the furloughees on both sides as if they were still active. So effectively my relative seniority goes from 79% to about 90%, since almost every L-UAL pilot junior to me on your proposal is still furloughed.

Not b!tching or ranting; just explaining.

 

Pierce and a number of cal guys in that block were advantaged by a 2.4% increase in senority over current and the 500 UAL guys you speak we're disadvantaged -1.3 to -1.4%. I would hope that this was strictly the formula and not a manual adjustment that awarded pierce what he is not entitled. UAL merger committee????

 

Sorry you got caught up in this but the furloughed UAL pilots have an expectation to return to UAL (even merged) at the same relative seniority. They are not being advantaged but instead are being returned to their rightful/earned place on the seniority list.

 

Except that seniority list no longer exists.

 

I got it. But did you look at the airplane ratios? We have more than 3 times as many widebodies. If the fleets matched up exactly we could just do relative seniority.

So you moved down 11% but you have more than 4 times as much wide body upside.

#JustSayin

 

My 2 cents worth.

No one knows what the arbitrators will do, maybe we will have a better feeling after the next round of negotiations.

Having read ll the material put out by both side, here is my prediction, like it or not.

Based on the arbitrator's instructions at the end of the last meeting, the awarded result will lie somewhere between the 2 proposed lists.

The arbitrators seemed interested in the program used by the UAL side. I think they might want to use it to run some scenarios of there own.

I think the answer will be to remove UAL and possibly CAL furloughs from the lists and rerun the UAL program.

Sorry to all the furloughs, just my opinion, and in this case, really doesn't mean much.