LAX Pilot

ALPA National already settled this. Its time spent at the "mainline carrier" and time spent at "wholly owned subsidiaries" do not count.

Its how to make an apples to apples comparison.

The arbitrators are using this standard, which is why the main arbitrator made the statement he made yesterday about making a decision without all the full employment data.

LeeMat

Ok thanks...Just trying to make sense of this whole mess.

Really

Lee, This sounds like a serious question!! I will try to answer it as clearly as I can. (This is the forth time I've answered the question on different threads!!) There may be a MAX of 100 guys that accrued Seniority (NOT LONGEVITY) of CAL's list through ALL THE FLOW THROUGH's! The reason I know this is I am one of them!! Called over to CAL prior to people senior to me at express due to a/c being phased out then I was furloughed came back to CAL prior to senior guys. I did NOT accrue SENIORITY while on Furlough! Not a secret program, just most people that negot. it are gone. If you straighten IT the seniority list out, it would benefit me quite a bit!! (Not what I want since it's not what the program was when i was hired!!) Playing devils advocate I not sure what the UAL guys are trying to gain! Lets say I am #10 on said list and a pilot that is senior to me on CAL list is #7 that came to CAL 3yrs after me gets readjusted due to UAL SLI. New CAL list would have me at #7 now and him at #10 what benefit is that to any UAL pilot?

Sunvox

Just wondering . . .

Why did Arbitrator Kaplan and Eischen spend the last 30 minutes asking questions about the furloughed 7-B pilots if they plan on stapling them?

Also, I find it interesting that Freund pointed the board to 2-E of the Protocol Agreement:




At first I didn't get why Freund was pointing here, but then I realized he's saying that just because CAL hired 600 guys since MAD the board can't take that as evidence of growth CAL would have had as a standalone operation nor can the board use the fact that furloughed pilots from UAL might "jump ahead" of CAL pilots in a reordered list be held against them since they were hired under the TPA 7-B clause which can not be used for or against the ISL decision.

Still I find the questions from the Arbs surrounding the 7-B pilots fascinating. This is the third time they have come around to this discussion and the second time Eischen asked for a "stipulation" from Katz with regards to the TPA and 7-Bs.

Fascinating. . .

LeeMat

Wait for it, soon there will be a Youtube posting from Larry with your answer!

SEDPA

The 1437 furloughs has been and will be the single biggest driver in this SLI ... CAL bet the farm on a status based integration to keep them behind CAL guys, and UAL bet the farm on longevity to put them ahead of CAL guys. The panel will probably have little difficulty dealing with all of the other equities in deriving that "fair" solution, but this single issue will be their thorn ... my guess is that they will determine that "fair" is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

tailwheel48

Gosh, a rational analysis! Didn't know that was allowed here!

Scott Stoops

...and to expand on that, the Nic award from the US/Cactus SLI is really the driver when combined with the disparity in the furlough lists. ALPA simply has to protect itself. It will cease to exist on this property if Nic2 happens (hint, it won't). CAL proposed Nic2. Tough call on the outcome, but I suspect that it won't even remotely resemble the CAL list.

CleCapt

But the ALPA policy has changed since then, the ALPA policy has changed since then, the alpa.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. ....

Can't have it both ways.

Scott Stoops

Not asking for anything to be both ways. It has to comply with ALPA merger policy. This is an ALPA dispute. They absolutely know what is at stake. As do the arbitrators. Where did I ask for anything but that? Not sure where you were going with your post.

Scott