A MAD snapshot is historical precedent and law, so I feel comfortable using that. The provisions for block hour and flying post merger were dictated by the TPA, and still are. It did not default back to your previous contract. The SFO 737 base was a new tri-party negotiation.

 

Disagree. The extreme for LUAL would have been DOH

 

The point is that had the TPA expired, as it would have absent a JCBA (and a prime incentive for many yes voters), CAL was protected, UAL wasn't, as per the legacy contracts, which are still (as pplicable) in effect today, and furthermore, the TPA only protected UAL to 90%. This is an equity with real value, as indicated in over 600 jobs being created on the CAL side, while the UAL side only recently and post JCBA recalled about 20% of thier furloughs (and most of those stayed out on Mil Leave) ... I think the arbs will not just ignore this equity, as the UAL proposal does.

The arbs are not bound by anything other than merger policy, and precedent (indirectly) ... I am not aware of any law that states MAD must be the "snapshot" ... precedent, in fact, doesn't exclude using a different date than MAD nor MCD ... other dates have been used, recently. The two parties have already agreed that the arbs may use whatever date they conclude is appropriate, and to date, I don't believe they have asked for a differnt certified list other than those already supplied in the direct cases (2010 and 2013) ... remember, your side is proposing the arbs use a MCD snapshot, not the 2010 certified list as presented by both MCs. But if you must believe that they will/must use a MAD list/snapshot, so be it.

 

There are a great many "unprecedented" firsts in previous SLIs starting with the "pull & plug" methodology used in the DAL/NWA SLI, but having said that the supposed "hybrid" proposal UAL put forth simply used a mathematical algorithm to create a "stovepipe". It may look new, but in reality it is a good 'ole fashioned stovepiping of category and status. If you look you will see that CAL 777 CAPs had the same score as UAL 777 CAPs for their "hybrid" calculation.

On a separate note, the arbitrators in the DAL/NWA SLI published their results 10 days after their last executive session.

Lastly, the DAL/NWA list was mostly what the DAL pilots proposed with the exception of the 400 or so pilots from NWA who were "pulled & plugged", so I don't know where 80Kts is getting off saying it has to be a "hybrid" result from the arbs. It wasn't in DAL's case, it wasn't in AWA's case and it won't be in this case either.

Stovepiped Cat & Stat sorted by ratios or longevity. It's not rocket science. The only question for the arbs is what Cats to use.

 

United still had minimum mainline block hours. It also would have been difficult to shrink lual without compromising rj block hours.

 

LAX: likewise, with the same respect, I am not as confused as some others seem to be. I do think the arbs will factor longevity into their methodology and final award ... I do not think the UAL proposal passes either the fair nor equitable thresholds though.

I find it a bit amusing, in light of the testimony from Brucia and Smith concerning the policy change and the ALPA MPRC, that so many folks believe that the policy was changed, on purpose, and with supremecy of cause, to add weight to longevity. The direct testimony of both Brucia and Smith (MPRC board members) does not indicate that to be the case. Brucia testified that the goal of the policy change was 1) enhance comm about merger policy; 2) give the option of JCBA first, then SLI (as to prevent US/AWA); and 3) clarify that merger reps and arbs should consider everything, and that fair and equitable is the end state threshold to cross. From the transcripts:

Redirect of Smith ... Question: About this additional language ... did
that mean ... that there might be other factors that the Arb board
would want to consider and it would be appropriate for them to do
so? Answer from Smith: Correct, we left it up to the arbs (what
factors to use, and what weight to be given)

Question: and did it also mean that since it was no particular weight,
that some of these factors could be considered and then not used in
the final decision of the Arb board if they felt that was necessary to
accomplish a fair and equitable merged list? Answer from Smith:
Correct.

As I stated earlier, and in many posts before, I sincerely hope the arbs consider and factor longevity into thier award ... that would be the fair and equitable thing to do. What do you think the arbs are going to use as the yardstick for fair? In many, no, most past awards, the arbs measured fairness by "bidding power", and how much was lost or gained by the award ... even in the post merger policy change Pinnacle/Mesaba/Colgan award, the arb paid great attention to the effect of the award on bidding power, and used that to measure fairness. In the UAL proposal, I would lose about 30% bidding power from the day before the award is effective ... does that cross the fairness threshold? Would any UAL folks like to lose 30% overnight? As for equitable, yes, it is an equity that should be valued and "compensated" for in regards to the UAL furloughed pilots. But how much equity is that longevity worth, especially considering that it could have been years before they were recalled, all the while long, the same bottom 1437 pilots on the CAL side would be gaining longevity while the UAL furloughs were not. So what kind of equity should the arbs transfer from the CAL side to the UAL side? Well, I'm glad I don't have to make that decision or calculation, but I sure don't think taking 30% bidding power from me and giving it to a pilot who doesn't have a job is equitable either ... some, yes, but not 30%. As stated earlier, we shall see soon enough.

 

Both went to the extremes? This comment is almost comical if it was not so pathetic!

 

Syd,

Consider yourself lucky.

 

This is a historical recreation of what the list should have looked like in 2010 when the merger happened. By agreement of the parties, the MAD took place in 2010. That's the date the arbitrators will use. The 2010 lists requested were for that purpose. The arbitrators also personally asked the company for MAINLINE CAL start and furlough dates. This shows 2 things. 1) They are going to measure and use longevity and 2) they are going to only consider MAINLINE flying time.

Also, the only other merger under the new policy they used 100% LONGEVITY within each status and category bucket. Either way it doesn't affect me because I come out about the same in both. My status and category bucket and longevity buckets put me at about 48% of the CAL list no matter how you slice it. I think its the 1997 hires at UAL and 2001 hires at CAL and beyond that there is the most variability in their post-SLI seniority based on how much longevity gets factored in.

We will all know before the end of August (my prediction).

 

The DL/NW list was a hybrid. DL proposed a strict cat/stat stovepipe. I would have integrated in with a Jul 1999 NW hire (I was hired Feb 2007) under that proposal and moved up overall relativeabout 3%. NW proposed strict DOH. I would have lost about 3% relative position on that.

The end result had about 200 pull/plug and was more of a straight relative list than anything. I moved up a quarter of a percent relative position and integrated with a Sept 2000 NW hire.

So yes, It was a hybrid that leaned a bit more toward the DL proposal.