The reason for the widebody preference/bidding pattern at each legacy airline really isn't an apples to apples comparison ... at L-UAL, the pay and schedule diversity matched pretty much along the fleet type. At L-CAL, that diversity was much more homogenized, meaning that at CAL, you didn't have to be in a wide body to get near widebody pay and QOL, which wasn't as true on the L- UAL side ... That is why the CAL side doesn't buy the UAL widebody "advantage" argument, especially since the UPA will continue to homogenize the pay and QOL diversity when compared to the L-UAL pre merger contract.

It says FAIR AND EQUITABLE, and that the arbs get to choose how to build the list ... It doesn't say use a mathematical stove piped method that equally weights cat/status and longevity ... but of coarse, you think that is fair and equitable ... But I REALLY DON'T CARE what you think (emphasis intended) .... but I am very interested in what the arbs think.;)

737 takes off. 2 pilots.

747 takes off. 4 pilots.

Those must be "extra" pilots! Staple them to the bottom!

The CAL proposal used block hours, ignoring a 747 or 777 block hour needs 4 pilots.

That's a pretty good one....except you pretty much did that already. The ratio you used was 944 CAL FOs to 1000 UAL FOs. That ratio is based off of FAA augmentation requirements...NOT UAL CBA or even actual staffing requirements. Anything else?

Yes, yes there is something else. We even ignored our augmented staffing of our 737. Ha, there you go. I'm sure you can now admit that it could have been worse. Right, RIGHT!

Nah, you guys are never happy. Oh well, I was simply answering your question.

Jseld, I never said yours was extreme. In fact it could be workable with some moderate tinkering. I bet that is what they are doing right now.

It's funny that I can remember arguing with CactusMike during the AAA/AWA seniority argument; you guessed right, I was in favor of longevity. Back that up to year 2000. During the argument with UAL, I was staunchly opposed to status and category due to the rapid career advancement at UAL at that time. Fast forward to 2010, I became certain that status and category was the right way to go. The aforementioned is clearly an admission of guilt; I changed my views to directly correlate with the advancement of my own seniority. Was I self-centered and selfish chameleon who twisted with the wind in order to advance my position? Yes. Am I much different from any other Pilot, or American for that matter, No.
Recent events have lead me to the realization that everybody wants the best for them and their own. It's really easy to get spun up while reading APC. Not so much when you have the opportunity to actually get to know and work with some from the opposite side. Believe it or not, I want the best for ALL of us, and I had absolutely no input into the proposed list. But both proposed list are behind us now. Both kids have said Fv<k in front of Mom, and now wait to see what Dad's verdict will be.
In either situation, expect LEC 171 to publish a message of UNITY after the list is presented. Most of you who have monitored ALL of my comm, won't find that hard to believe; as I have always valued UNITY. During the 2000 UAL/AAA merger, I was 30. During the AAA/AWA merger, I was 35. When the UAL/CAL award is rendered, I'll be 43. And I'm gonna do better. In about 10 weeks Syd, I'll represent you; and I promise to give it my best.

Nice to know you will give it your best, just not to sure on the unity part, but hey I could be wrong. Good luck.

Thanx Syd.

After reading the tread, I wasn't sure of the initial authors intent. With your most recent posts it's become oblivious. Call it what you will, but it's still POLITICAL POSTURING. I know how ALPA works and I'll make it work for you. VOTE FOR ME.............