Originally Posted by SEDPA (Post 1449600)

" The merger representatives shall carefully weigh all the equities inherent in their merger situation. In joint session, the merger representatives should attempt to match equities to various methods of integration until a fair and equitable integrated seniority list is reached. Factors to be considered in constructing a fair and equitable integrated list, in no particular order and with no particular weight, shall include but not be limited to the following:..."

Didn't see or read the word "tenant" ... Both sides reps who served on the re-write committee didn't mention tenant; in fact, both sides agreed the change was made to emphasize "fair and equitable" and de-emphasize the limitations of the old 5 factors. Are we reading the same policy? Or is there a special "FOR L-UAL PILOTS ONLY" copy floating around?

Originally Posted by gettinbumped (Post 1452918)

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.

Originally Posted by LAX Pilot (Post 1453076)

They SHALL include it. It WILL be used.

Originally Posted by Skyflyin (Post 1453141)

Not necessarily, "taken into account" from McGraw Hill means:

take something into account and take something into consideration:

to consider something to be an important factor in some decision. We will take your long years of service into account when we make our final decision. You can be certain that we will take it into consideration.
take into account - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

If it was mandatory to take it into account don't you think they would have just said WILL INCLUDE instead of WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT?

For example, they can't include a status and category for furloughed pilots, because they don't have either. Although they must consider it, they have to ignore it since it's not pertinent. The basic reason behind the policy is to make it fair, not to mandate to the arbitrators how to do it. If that where so we would only have a brief discussion on career expectations since longevity and status and category are objective.

From reading the transcripts I think the arbitrators are smart enough to figure out what is fair. Man, I sure do hope so anyway.

Originally Posted by LAX Pilot (Post 1453068)

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.

Originally Posted by routemap (Post 1453147)

CAL considered it, determined LUAL was over staffed.

LUAL's hybird proposal, unprecedented.

We can go on forever. Both proposals went to the extreme, NOT just CAL. Those that find this hard to believe might be in for a big surprise.

cheers!

Originally Posted by routemap (Post 1453147)

CAL considered it, determined LUAL was over staffed.

LUAL's hybird proposal, unprecedented.

We can go on forever. Both proposals went to the extreme, NOT just CAL. Those that find this hard to believe might be in for a big surprise.

cheers!

Originally Posted by routemap (Post 1453147)

CAL considered it, determined LUAL was over staffed.

LUAL's hybird proposal, unprecedented.

We can go on forever. Both proposals went to the extreme, NOT just CAL. Those that find this hard to believe might be in for a big surprise.

cheers!

Originally Posted by LAX Pilot (Post 1453150)

CAL ALPA found UAL overstaffed? HAHAHAHA