Originally Posted by larryiah

Stalker, I have accepted the fact that you will never understand the point. Now, please explain the conspiracy theories about Pierce, right-sizing, and the CAL MEC trying to influence the SLI.

Originally Posted by Staller

May 29, 2013

Today we updated the MEC on the progress of the SLI arbitration. While we are only about half-way through the process – more arbitration (Rebuttal), post-hearing briefs, executive session and the award still to come – the MEC requested an overview and the opportunity to ask us questions that some of you have raised with your LEC representatives. This update passes on as much information as we can to you, recognizing that we do not want to prejudice our case by disclosing evidence we have not yet presented to the Board.

During the meeting, we described and explained our proposal, which is based on a hybrid methodology of 50 percent weighting of longevity and 50 percent weighting of status and category to honor these two factors of ALPA merger policy. The proposal also addressed the third factor of merger policy, career expectations, by including limited widebody conditions and restrictions to protect these jobs for the first officers and captains of both pre-merged groups. We also discussed the factors that led us to present this proposal. As we described to the MEC, we analyzed hundreds of methodologies and weighed them against numerous valuation tools and found that our proposed list was the most fair and equitable for ALL involved. Further, as we stated in our pre-hearing briefs to the Arbitration panel:

It is enough to say that our proposal is shaped by the history and words of Merger Policy and the facts that will be developed in the months ahead. It is a proposal that balances the three factors laid out in Merger Policy – status and category, longevity and career expectations – as they ought to apply in this case. We cannot predict what the Continental Committee’s proposal will be, but we want to be clear that we do not make this proposal to set the far end of a bracket, expecting that the Board will find some compromise between what it sees as two competing extremes.

We have also received numerous emails, calls and texts from many of you. We have attempted to address your questions and concerns, but we understand that many of you still have questions. To better understand our methodology and proposed list construction, we strongly urge you not to rely on rumors and hearsay but rather to review our exhibits and the hearing transcripts. The relevant exhibits on the list construction and methodology itself are in reverse chronological order starting with Volume 5 (Ruark), and are themselves based on many of the exhibits in Volume 4 (Harwood, Madruga, Gillen), etc. If you read only Volume 5, it should give you enough of our methodology to generally understand our proposed list, but reading the other volumes and the transcripts for our full week of presentation will provide a more complete understanding of our methodology and proposed list. You should also read the CAL exhibits and the transcript of their case so you can better understand the competing version of facts and the essence of their proposal. Again, we caution you not to rely on out-of-context quotes or exhibits, and certainly not on others’ characterizations of our presentation and our proposal.

Thank you for taking the time and effort to share your questions and feedback and to understand what we have been spending our own time and effort doing - representing the interests of ALL 7,700 pilots on the UAL seniority list.

Originally Posted by Really

Staller, that is the most level headed thing I've ever seen you post!! Oh, I just realized it was 100% quote!!

Originally Posted by larryiah

Sounds like there was not a good argument for the UAL proposed list, so they resorted to appeasement and told the arbitrators, look we are being fair, we have a bunch of nonsensical, colorful charts to prove it.

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking

I am confident you will say otherwise, but your post screams that you did not read the transcript.

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking

Why was there a refusal to sign a DAL/NWA style letter preventing the JCBA to be used as a platform for the sli? Why did one state that he would drag out the JCBA indefinitely unless there was pay banding?

Originally Posted by SEDPA

CAL contract 05, and the openers for 08, had pay bands similar to what is in the UPA now ... So why should we have conceded on this principle? ... And knowing that this was an absolute from the CAL perspective, why didn't the UAL MEC concede earlier? ... Who caused the delay?

Originally Posted by larryiah

Hey, our opinions are swayed by our own situations. When this merger was announced, these two companies were competitors. Everybody had the opportunity to apply to both of these companies at one time or another. We live with the decisions we make. Sometimes these decisions work out, sometimes they don't. I don't deserve the effects of your decision as you don't deserve mine. Longevity will be a very small piece of the equation.

Originally Posted by Sunvox

The humorous part is that the pay schedules will benefit UAL pilots by virtue of pure numbers. No matter how the SLI is broken down UAL pilots gain 737 Cap time and CAL pilots gain WBFO time and given that 737 time is the highest compensation relative to peers UAL pilots stand to benefit from the CAL negotiated contractual rates.