Political Posturing -
07-28-2013 | 09:40 AM
#262
Peace Love Understanding
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
From: Airbus
" 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?
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?
With all respect, I think there is confusion over the term "considered". Considered to most people means "I'll think about it". In contract law, considered means "A factor taken into account in evaluating or judging something"
Consider doesn't mean OPTIONAL. It means YOU WILL TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT.
Also, consideration must "have a value that can be objectively determined."
The arbitrators obviously understand the meaning of the word, and the policy itself, and why that one factor was added.
So when you substitute the definition into the word it reads like this....
"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 TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT 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... LONGEVITY, STATUS AND CATEGORY, and CAREER EXPECTATIONS" -emphasis added.
They SHALL include it. It WILL be used.
07-28-2013 | 10:07 AM
#263
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 308
Likes: 1
UCH managed each subsidiary since MAD per the TPA and each legacy contract, until the UPA became effective. Once the UPA was in effect, then UCH managed each side via the effective parts of the UPA, the applicable parts of each legacy contract, and the applicable parts of the TPA. Some believe that since it was the same company managing each subsidiary at MAD, nothing post MAD is relevant to the SLI. I think it is very relevant because it represents an equity that advantages CAL and disadvantages UAL. The TPA only protected 90% of your pre-merger block hours ... the CAL contract protected 100 % of CAL pre-merger block hours, and ensured that CAL aircraft orders and jobs went to the CAL side. If you argue a MAD "snapshot", and then only account for the UAL wide body "advantage" in a career expectation valuation, then viola, those 635 jobs created since MAD don't get a value.
07-28-2013 | 12:29 PM
#264
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
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.
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.
07-28-2013 | 12:43 PM
#265
Peace Love Understanding
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
From: Airbus
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.
Those furloughed pilots ALL have longevity. Some as many as 7 years. The written policy specifically mentions LONGEVITY, but doesn't mention active vs furloughed.
Why do the CAL pilots have such a hard on to staple the UAL pilots with 7 years of longevity?
07-28-2013 | 12:45 PM
#266
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
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.
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.
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!
07-28-2013 | 12:47 PM
#267
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
Yup. The final ruling will be a hybrid. No matter how convinced you are that your side made the reasonable proposal.
07-28-2013 | 12:49 PM
#268
Peace Love Understanding
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
From: Airbus
Let's just use longevity then. That's the last SLI done under this new policy. That's certainly not unprecedented.
We will find out soon. Arbitrators meet TOMORROW in closed session.
07-28-2013 | 12:56 PM
#269
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,512
Likes: 0
From: 787 Captain
In the brief the author postulates what an extreme L-UAL position might look like had they chosen to take it. Good stuff...you should check it out.
Can you give me an example of a more extreme position the LCAL side could've taken? I'm not saying 'stupid extreme' like stapling all of us, just more extreme but somewhat defensible.
07-28-2013 | 12:57 PM
#270
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 0
Exactly.
Glenn (and later Jeff) was well known for his desire to overstaff and pay salary to thousands of "extra" pilots. [/sarcasm]
It's such a ridiculous claim that I'm thrilled to see the CAL committee stick with it to the bitter end.
Glenn (and later Jeff) was well known for his desire to overstaff and pay salary to thousands of "extra" pilots. [/sarcasm]
It's such a ridiculous claim that I'm thrilled to see the CAL committee stick with it to the bitter end.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
