|
Originally Posted by Scott Stoops
(Post 1448844)
Actually, it also substantially increases the longevity credit for many CAL pilots (nearly 3 years to be exact) while the corporation was being managed by a single entity. There is no way to predict what would have been for either company post Oct 2010 (merger closing date) sans merger. We can all presuppose to our heart's delight based on the color of our respective uniforms, but there is no precedence for what the CAL side proposed in that matter. What happened after that date should have no bearing (has not ever in any merger to the best of my knowledge, nor has a date later than the merger closing date ever been used by an arbitration panel) on the SLI process. We'll see if the arb panel agrees.
Scott |
Originally Posted by Scott Stoops
(Post 1448844)
Actually, it also substantially increases the longevity credit for many CAL pilots (nearly 3 years to be exact) while the corporation was being managed by a single entity. There is no way to predict what would have been for either company post Oct 2010 (merger closing date) sans merger. We can all presuppose to our heart's delight based on the color of our respective uniforms, but there is no precedence for what the CAL side proposed in that matter. What happened after that date should have no bearing (has not ever in any merger to the best of my knowledge, nor has a date later than the merger closing date ever been used by an arbitration panel) on the SLI process. We'll see if the arb panel agrees.
Scott |
..................
|
Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
(Post 1448861)
To be more specific, 2013 numbers vs 2010 are detrimental to our furloughees with regards to longevity.
|
Originally Posted by Scott Stoops
(Post 1448844)
Actually, it also substantially increases the longevity credit for many CAL pilots (nearly 3 years to be exact) while the corporation was being managed by a single entity. There is no way to predict what would have been for either company post Oct 2010 (merger closing date) sans merger. We can all presuppose to our heart's delight based on the color of our respective uniforms, but there is no precedence for what the CAL side proposed in that matter. What happened after that date should have no bearing (has not ever in any merger to the best of my knowledge, nor has a date later than the merger closing date ever been used by an arbitration panel) on the SLI process. We'll see if the arb panel agrees. Scott
When the award is published, folks won't be using MAD to judge the award's fairness; they will look at where they currently sit, and where the award puts them; when the award becomes effective, the effect of the award won't somehow be "magically" metered back to MAD, but rather, the effect on one's QOL will immediately be triggered to one's current position. Using the MAD or MCD only benefits the UAL side, and will crush the CAL side. |
Originally Posted by Skyflyin
(Post 1448870)
If the arbs are to use longevity for furloughees, how can they ignore the longevity of CAL's active pilots through 2013? It seems that if your going to use one you should use the other.
Sorry. The merger was 2010 and this process is putting together what the list SHOULD HAVE LOOKED LIKE in 2010, not waiting a few years for one side to get more longevity before starting the process. |
Originally Posted by SEDPA
(Post 1448900)
Not that anything we say will matter to the arbs, or to each other (mostly), but there is also ZERO precedent in any board using the proposed UAL methodology. As far as a single management ... Why does that matter when that single entity was managing each side IAW the contract in place and the TP&A, meaning, each side was still operating with the equities they had on MAD, so the time from MAD to JCBA complete is a just representation of what those equities produced. Again, it really doesn't matter ... The arbs will reach the fair and equitable threshold no doubt.
Originally Posted by SEDPA
(Post 1448900)
When the award is published, folks won't be using MAD to judge the award's fairness; they will look at where they currently sit, and where the award puts them; when the award becomes effective, the effect of the award won't somehow be "magically" metered back to MAD, but rather, the effect on one's QOL will immediately be triggered to one's current position. Using the MAD or MCD only benefits the UAL side, and will crush the CAL side.
Scott |
Originally Posted by LAX Pilot
(Post 1449070)
So you want to stop counting longevity for UAL pilots in 2010 but keep counting longevity for CAL pilots until 2013?
|
Originally Posted by Skyflyin
(Post 1449135)
No, what would be fair, IMO, is to count longevity for ALL pilots, both CAL and UAL through April 2013.
Those furloughees with five and six years of longevity concern you don't they? |
Originally Posted by SEDPA
(Post 1448900)
Not that anything we say will matter to the arbs, or to each other (mostly), but there is also ZERO precedent in any board using the proposed UAL methodology. As far as a single management ... Why does that matter when that single entity was managing each side IAW the contract in place and the TP&A, meaning, each side was still operating with the equities they had on MAD, so the time from MAD to JCBA complete is a just representation of what those equities produced. Again, it really doesn't matter ... The arbs will reach the fair and equitable threshold no doubt.
When the award is published, folks won't be using MAD to judge the award's fairness; they will look at where they currently sit, and where the award puts them; when the award becomes effective, the effect of the award won't somehow be "magically" metered back to MAD, but rather, the effect on one's QOL will immediately be triggered to one's current position. Using the MAD or MCD only benefits the UAL side, and will crush the CAL side. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:29 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands