Impending: Almost. Not yet. Close. Hasn't happened yet.

 

Oops. Wrong reply

 

Could you please give an example of a precedent where time post merger is relevant in an SLI arbitration?

 

Never. Always a snapshot of the merger date. Post merger means nothing.

Anyway, if the arbitrators wanted to use 2013 they'd have requested a 2013 seniority list from UAL, but they didn't. They have the two 2010 lists each side provided as well as a 2013 list the CAL side tried to sneak in. Since they didn't ask for a 2013 UAL list it doesn't appear they are going with the 2013 logic, which is what the CAL proposal is based on. Which doesn't bode well for the CAL proposal.

The only thing they wanted that wasn't provided was accurate CAL hiring and furloughs, specifically the arbitrator in his letter asked management from time CAL pilots spent at mainline, and when they were furloughed from mainline and came back to mainline.

This makes me believe they ARE going to use longevity as a factor (probably a big one) since they wanted accurate numbers. Also, since the CAL side went through so much effort to hide the true picture and obfuscate the data and try to denounce the UAL acquired Zeus data, it means the CAL side believes longevity will be a major factor as well.

If they bought any of the CAL arguments they wouldn't want that info and they'd want a 2013 UAL list.

If they do go with "Captains merged with Captains, you have UAL 1996 hires and CAL 1998 hires the same seniority, then going from there with longevity probably being a major player based on the arbitrators request for accurate longevity information.

 

When it DOES come out similar to the UAL list CAL guys will be up in arms and rightfully so. They won't be attributing the blame where it SHOULD lie - the CAL MEC. Either they were ignorant of the new ALPA merger policy ( which I don't think is the case) or they intentionally pumped up the false expectations to their pilot group which is criminal, quite literally. Maybe they started actually believing the argument they conjured up - who knows but I am sad the way the whole 3+ year deal played out.

One council can not come soon enough.

 

Isn't the LUAL proposal doing the opposite? 2010 list and new pay rates? (JCBA)

Many on here keep talking about the snapshot being the merger date, 2010, but I could of sworn I have read at least one arbitration award using different snapshots. A precedent? I really don't think it is.

I believe if a 2013 list benefited LUAL, it would be used.

 

Every merger is unique. However, every merger considers career expectations. Determining career expectations in akin to reading a crystal ball. In NWA/DAL, for example, career expectations were based on the theoretical. In the UAL/CAL, since it's been three years since the merger and CAL has executed it's planned fleet change (retirement of 737-500's, 767-200's, and delivery of 737NG's and 787's), what would have been theoretical in 2010 is now fact. Therefore, what has happened since the corporate merger is most definitely relative.

Whether you take the 2010 list and determine career expectation in combining lists or you take the 2013 list and combine from there, both scenarios should take into account the direction (career expectations) that both airlines were heading at the time of merger. That's been the case in almost every pilot seniority integration.

There are many factors (besides the movement at CAL) that go into career expectations. For example, UAL pilots have more widebody aircraft and an expectation for wb Captain. If you remember, at time of merger, there were many questions surrounding the future of the 747-400's. Had the seniority integration taken place in 2010, I have no doubt that the CAL attorney's would have argued that the 747's would exit the fleet in the near term in favor of 787's. However, as we have seen since that time, UCAL has committed to upgrading the 747 fleet and keeping them in service for at least the next ten years. That fact strengthens the UAL position (as it should). Again, what has happened since 2010 in no longer theoretical but fact.

 

Pre-merger compensation is not a factor in integration. Never has been used in any arbitration and not in the current policy. Plus it was proven that the UAL compensation (payrates + benefits) were slightly more for every UAL fleet seat compared to CAL. Yes I know the CAL side ONLY wants to look at hourly rates and ignore the rest of the package. Also historically, CAL payrates were far below UAL payrates.

There aren't "snapshots" being used. Both sides agreed in the Merger Protocol Agreement that the "Merger Acquisition Date" is the "date the merger is publicly announced".

Until that happened, there COULDN'T BE JOINT CONTRACT NEGOTIATION. So you're trying to say that the MAD was 2013, but the JOINT exhibit that CAL and UAL MECs both signed say that AFTER MAD the parties will begin to negotiate a JOINT CONTRACT. Here's the actual language "Within ten days following MAD, the UAL and CAL MECs shall each designate three Negotiating Committee members to jointly negotiate transition agreements, if appropriate, and a JCBA.

Well since we had a JCBA agreed to by the parties in June 2012 and FULLY RATIFIED in Dec 2012, there is no way that somehow in 2013 we still just are getting to the MAD date because we couldn't have started the JCBA negotiations until AFTER that date.

So the process agreement date was May 17th, 2010 and SIGNED by both parties agreeing to this. Then after seeing what kind of changes there were post-merger, the CAL side tried to make a case for a 2013 MAD.

So the date really isn't debatable. Its CONTRACTUAL, and was already decided by the parties.

I totally get it. You agree to 2010 MAD, then after a few years of seeing the single management team favor one side of the airline, stall and try to claim 2013 as the Merger date.

 

The UAL side did that. CAL pilots will spend more time flying higher paying, more time off widebody airplanes as a result of the merger, and UAL pilots will spend more time flying narrowbody airplanes. They forecast out both the CAL list and the UAL list and gave hard data (not conjecture) to the arbitrators, that showed both sided evenly benefitting from the proposed list, while the CAL list just ended up with over 90% of all widebody flying positions being flown by LCAL pilots in about 15 years.

So it WAS taken into account. It just turns out that the 50/50 longevity and status and category method showed that each sides career expectations would be statically changed evenly.

You can't argue 2013 proves anything. Just because current management parked UAL 757s and chose to replace them with 737s doesn't mean a stand alone United would ahve done that. Also, standalone UAL had 25 787s on order with 50 more options and 25 A-350s with 25 options. So statically, UAL is actually growing as well.

 

I for one, am tired of the arguments..We all obviously have skewed view points...Let the arbs figure it out, and the chips fall where they may.