Yea, I can see that.

 

To be more specific, 2013 numbers vs 2010 are detrimental to our furloughees with regards to longevity. It is detrimental to all of us with regards to fleet and seat.

 

..................

 

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.

 

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.

 

So you want to stop counting longevity for UAL pilots in 2010 but keep counting longevity for CAL pilots until 2013?

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.

 

There is far less history of a 1:1 slotting and staple the rest that Cal proposed. It literally addressed 1/2 of 1 of the 3 basic tenets of the current ALPA merger policy. We'll know soon enough what the arbs thought of each sides argument.
I could care less what folks use to judge the awards fairness (2010, 2012, 2013, current, hell, why not 5 years from now?) The arb's don't either. What there is is precedence, and the setting of precedence for future awards. It won't crush either side, it will simply normalize it to what actually happened when the two companies merged in 2010. Take away delay, divert and leverage and we have 2010 when one management team in a legal sense started making decisions about fleet makeup, structure and staffing.

Scott

 

No, what would be fair, IMO, is to count longevity for ALL pilots, both CAL and UAL through April 2013.

 

You can do better than that. Call Smizek, ask him what date the company intends to merge the pilot groups. Use that date to squeeze the blood out of the turnip.

Those furloughees with five and six years of longevity concern you don't they?

 

The ultimate equity is $$ (cash, credit & investor confidence). Did they keep those equities separate?