:d :d :d :d :d

With your fair proposal, our bottom third will never be widebody Captains.

Oh. Pardon me. They are not "tenants", just " factors to be considered ". My prediction still stands. See you on the line.

Sled

Nailed it.

Aaaaand again.... Explain to me how your pre-merger contract (or ours, for that matter) supersedes the negotiated TPA which has been the governing document since 2010.

I hear a lot of talking from the LUAL folks about the "longevity" aspect of all of this. The "status and category" I have a question about. Usually, people think of "status" as what seat you are sitting in, right?
What was the "status" of the LUAL furloughed pilots in 2010?
Was their "status" furloughed?
Will this come down to "status vs. longevity"?

Who knows :confused:

They were given zero status and category. Happy?

No.

Wern't they given a percentage in the LUAL proposal? That would tell me they WERE given a status.
(I apologize if this has already been discussed)

Read the transcripts.

UAL Proposal >> Hybrid of Status & Category + Longevity (each weighted at 50%)
- Status & Category list gave furloughees in Oct 2010 zero points (furlough status equals zero points)
- Longevity list gives longevity credit to everyone (~'stovepipish' method)
- Two lists 'merged' w/ 50/50 weighting to produce 'final' list

It's all in the transcripts -- in great detail.

Gwopo,

Not exactly. It doesn't matter what seat "you" or any specific pilot is sitting in. It means what overall seats were brought to the mix regardless of who is sitting in them.

The way both sides presented this was from stovepiping. They assumed that each seat was filled by the most senior pilot and went from there. For example, if you got hired in late 2005 into the 756 FO position, you are actually in the 737 FO stovepipe. Because the bottom 1,500 or so pilots would hold those positions if everyone bid their highest possible status.

We know that doesn't happen because some people don't want to be on reserve, etc.

With UAL CAL it also separates out the disparate contracts. For example, at UAL in virtually every seat, no FO can hold Captain in that domicile. Why? Because UAL had a far better reserve system than CAL, so pilot upgraded as soon as possible. If you have a lousy reserve system, you are more likely to stay senior in a right seat and hold a line.

Also, if you have more pilots commuting, you are going to have equipment go more junior because commuters won't upgrade and sit reserve as likely as pilots who live 15 minutes from the airport.

So status and category is simply what jobs brought, regardless of who sits, when they were hired, etc.

After AWA/US ALPA decided that LONGEVITY needed to be tossed in there as well. If pilots were hired on the same days in the same percentage, and the fleets were exactly the same makeups, mergers would be easy. All three of those factors are the same so no one would change.

CAL argued "1 for 1". They ignored status and category and longevity. They just picked something very good for them and used non-definable subjective opinion to back it up.

UAL used 50% status and category, with 50% longevity. They then put them together and said, "How does this affect career expectations". They found that it benefited CAL overall a bit, hurt UAL a bit, and backed it all up statistically. The UAL proposal left every pilot within 5% of their 2010 seniority placement.

They meet tomorrow to put the list together. We won't know what they decided for a month because they have to write their opinion of why they put the list together the way they did.