No one hired at CAL in 1997 or later could hold Captain on any aircraft in a strict stovepipe bidding in 2010. Yes I know a few people in 2001 and 2000 were GUM 737 Caps, but that's because a lot of more senior pilots stayed on the 777 and 756 right seats.

OK ... I will play that game .... we are all aware that absent a merger, UAL would not be magically flying L-CAL routes today that they had never flown before ... YOU GUYS JUST CAN'T ACCEPT ANOTHER PERCEPTION OF REALITY ... UAL had no protections at all in their contract w/respect to merger flying hour ratios, but you got them in the TP&A, and the company did not violate those ratios ... so how is it that we stole your flying??? If anything is true, when the company moved flying around, you gained WB flying at our expense.

There is no smoking gun in any of the transcripts w/regards to ALPA's intentions when they changed the merger policy, and specifically why longevity was added ... nothing at all in the testimony to support the UAL proposition of a 50% longevity credit ... nothing at all. If the merger policy review committe had intended longevity to be credited as UAL proposes, why didn't they spell that out, or why didn't your MC bring forth a witness or witnesses to support this claim?? In fact, if you read the testimony from both sides (direct case of each side), both sides pretty much testifed that merger policy was a. changed as a result of US/AWA, b. that the policy wording was "cleaned up" to three factors, and c. the focus is on fair and equitable; fair and equitable are the thresholds, not the three factors. Furthermore, read the Pinnacle award; longevity really didn't play much of a factor in that integration; certainly not to the extent that the UAL MC has proposed. I just don't understand how so many can be so convinced in the longevity argument. I hope that the arbs do use longevity, but it has to be balanced with the bidding power of each pilot on the list ... do you want to lose 30% bidding power day one after SLI??

You are totally correct. 50% for longevity credit is ridiculous.

UAL's committee should have simply proposed the 100% credit that the arbitrator decided was fair in the prior integration conducted under the "new" policy when he sorted each status/category by straight DOH to account for longevity.

Hopefully the arbitrators in the UAL/CAL case will toss out the outrageous UAL proposal and simply follow the prior precedent established by one of the most respected and experienced arbitrators. ;)

Seriously???

The entire Pinnacle award was based on status/category groups sorted by straight DOH. Longevity, as measured by DOH, was the only thing that sorted each group.

Many airlines have senior FOs on the 777 and 756.

2005 hires held captain for a couple of months. Prior to 2010.

Seriously? Did you listen to the part where a person that wrote the new merger policy stated it was added to avoid another US/AWA type merger which was straight relative seniority without consideration for longevity?

So its GOING to be used. May be 50% may be 100%.

Only the arbitrators know.

Well, ok then ... sure.

Please understand that your reps were obviously convinced of the longevity argument...to bad Fred left early...all that hard work over 3 years suppressing the facts and data to certify a bogus list. The cat got out! I'm sure Arbs don't mind being deceived.

Exactly. If longevity not a big deal why supply bogus information to the hearing then claim "no one knows".

Also notice that as soon as the arbitrators got their hands on the real mainline longevity data (The written letter to management came from the arbitrators themselves), they said they didn't need the extra hearing days.

Anyone who think longevity is not going to be a major player in this is in for a big surprise.

Who said they didn't need the extra hearing days? The arbitrators???

Lady's and Gents:

Please consider that this thread was generated to indict me for political posturing. I think most folks understand that I have no further political ambitions other than representing the IAH F/O's. In a twisted manner, I think the author understands this as well.

From today's CAL MEC update:

MEC INVOLVEMENT
The members of the Merger Committee are elected by the MEC, yet we work directly for the pilots. The Merger Committee should be and is autonomous. Our sole job is to represent the interests of all CAL pilots relating to seniority. In the past at other ALPA properties, many MEC representatives and MEC chairmen have inserted themselves in the process - and not always with positive results. That was not the case here. The CAL Merger Committee received nothing but the full support of your elected leaders. We were left alone to do our singular job without political distractions of any kind. Capt. Pierce made certain that we had all the resources we needed and made certain that we could stay focused on our singular goal: representing the Continental pilots.

I agree whole-heartedly with above stated. Both merger committees, have done the best job possible for their respective Pilots. I doubt anyone in IAH likes F/O Ruark's proposal; I doubt anyone in ORD likes Captain Brucia's. As an MEC member, I can state that the merger committees were allowed to do their thing without much, if any, input from Line-Pilots or LEC Reps.

An SLI is an ugly process that is an unfortunate by-product of the profession that we share. At USAirways, we had an Army/Air Force type rivalry between Philly (USAIR) and Charlotte (Piedmont). My Captain and I got called on the carpet because the Captain made a PA referring to the Charlotte Motor Speedway as the "North Carolina Performing Arts Center"; a certain B of A executive failed to see the humor in this and relayed that sentiment to Stephen Wolf. The Piedmont/USAIR rivalry was passionate, but not venomous. Fast-forward to the AmWest merger and things got very bitter. So bitter that the collective East/West Pilots Pilots have probably lost 2 BILLION Dollars basking in their hatred for one another. The sad part; on an individual basis, I know of no east/west Pilot who hate one another. The respective merger committees and MEC's did, but that's what they thought their duty was. Ultimately, the Line-Pilot suffered, and continues to financially suffer for that hatred.

My point, if the SLI award has the potential to be far too bitter a pill to swallow, then come up with a plan B instead of wasting your time bashing each other on the web-boards. I'm not pontificating because that's exactly what I did...I felt the USAirways isl so unpalatable, that I resigned. I left the same guys, who are still posting venom in other threads to pursue greener pastures at Continental; and those who I left are still posting the same insults and venom that they were 8 years ago when I resigned my USAirways position.

Now the USAirway situation is far worse than what we face at the current United, as furloughs and mergers were still forthcoming. CAL has been hiring 16/week for over a year, and true UAL recalls will begin post sli. Even so, if whatever the arbitrators deliver is not palatable to you and your family, I suggest you start making contingency plans instead of wasting so much time insulting each other over a train that has already left the station. If you plan to stay post sli, like me, do us all a favor and try to bring something positive to the table and not just p!$$ and vinegar to feed OUR new-hires.

Philosophically speaking, about 120 Billion people have ever been born on earth; maybe 1o million have been as fortunate as us; being able to earn a fruitful living doing something we LOVE to do. Just like bad-mouthing America, bad-mouthing each other is a terrible insult to those born in Yemen or relegated to flying for less-than viable carriers for their entire careers. I, for one, think this merger can be a GREAT thing for BOTH groups...if we make a conscious and united effort to make it so. That doesn't mean that I'll ever shed one ounce of pride in myself or my fellow CAL Pilots; but it does mean that I am willing to admit that I like what the United Pilots bring to the table, look forward to sharing that same pride with you and know that we will do best together.

It's time to put this petty and self-destructive fighting (posting) behind us. I suggest we ALL donate $1 into a pot for the poor bastard who gets ***** the worst (of course that'll be me :)) and buy him/her a good bottle of cognac. Let's make a conscious effort to treat each other better; 3 years of this is too long.

Frats,

Ben