PAOKGATE;

+1.

Make that +1,000,000

True, but it has nothing to do with my post/question.

Good post Ben. Thanks for your representation.

When? In 2008 before they were bumped? What does that matter? UAL 1997 hires held Captain in 2000 and again in 2007. Irrelevant. That's why it's called a snapshot date. Get ready. ;)

Sled

Junior DOH holding a Captain bid at CAL on 9/17/2010.
IAH 787 CAP 6/84
777 CAP 10/84
756 CAP 5/90
737 CAP 11/98

EWR 777 CAP 3/86
756 CAP 10/95
737 CAP 8/98

CLE 737 CAP 7/98
GUM 737 CAP 5/05

Thanks for posting this, and keep in mind that this isn't even a stovepiped version of reality - it is a bid pattern version. Same thing on the UAL side. Junior Cap was approx 1996 during that period, but if you stovepipe it, it doesn't come close to that. Bidding patterns do not come into play in mergers. What each pilot is entitled to absolutely does. The junior number in any BES means absolutely nothing.

On the perspective of a relative seniority solution - that is exactly what the NIC award was that caused the change to ALPA merger policy (i.e. relative seniority, staple the furloughed pilot).

The CAL merger committee went one step further (to the extreme side) and said not only do we want improve relative seniority for CAL pilots, we advocate using a 1:1 slotting system and using our staffing model (absurd), so there are a full 1000 "extra" UAL pilots that should have been furloughed, so we'll staple them to the bottom below every single CAL pilot as well. I don't think the CAL pilots fully understand how extreme that proposal really was. It is dramatically more extreme than the NIC award. The NIC award cost ALPA 6000+ dues paying members (approx 15 mil a year in dues) and caused the uproar that changed ALPA merger policy. Yet the CAL side proposed something even more extreme. It simply isn't going to happen.

Scott

What the CAL guys also don't recognize is WHY UAL had the 1000 extra pilots. Post merger, CAL guppies were replacing UAL flying, but UAL didn't bump or furlough any pilots. Management probably didn't realize how silly a group of $#%stards they were dealing with, and that we would drag the JCBA out almost 3 years due to internal bickering.

This is why the snapshot date absolutely has to be 2010. If not, it sets a precedent that delaying the SLI while one side grabs an advantage will be rewarded. No SLI will ever be done in a timely fashion if anything later than an Oct 2010 date is used as a snapshot.

l-CAL was NOT hiring 50 pilots a month for the last year and a half. UCH was. All those pilots went to one side of the fence, and those pilots were able to bid on flying on both sides of the fence.

The arbitrators cannot reward the l-CAL side with this extra "seniority". They are experienced and know what they are doing. They cannot set a precedent like this, and they know it.

The arbitrators know a conspiracy theory when they hear it.

I see what you are saying. I'd have to answer: "It depends". You see the problem with that method as far as I see it is this. If after the seniority list is published, we all stay in our relative positions in our relative seats, then it is unfair to the LUAL pilots. This is simply due to the fact that the LUAL side brings substantially more WB Captain jobs to the merger, while the LCAL side brings substantially more NB jobs to the merger. Therefore, the pool of the most desirable jobs is diluted for the LUAL guys post merger, and is improved for the LCAL side. There should be some adjustment for that which isn't considered in your proposal, longevity issues aside (which can't be completely ignored per ALPA).

I say this despite the LCAL testimony that they wished we didn't have all these pesky new work rules so that we could all work harder... That was NOT our finest moment as airline pilots. You don't think we will see that testimony during the next round of contract negotiations????? =(

Good post Scott.

I've asked the question before, and have not gotten 1 LCAL pilot to answer it, so perhaps they are more aware of how far in the weeds their proposal is than we give credit for:

If this is the methodology that the LCAL Committee thinks is fair, should we then adopt it as ALPA Merger Policy? If so, can someone please explain how that would work if we merge with Alaska. In that case, the newest new hire at Alaska Airlines would instantly be a Widebody Captain, and the bottom 85% of our combined UCH list would be stapled below them. Sound like a good methodology?

Hey Larry;

Since 2010

1. UC Holdings has shrank capacity every year, including this year
2. All of the capacity came out of the l-UAL side, mostly 75's
3. The l-CAL subsidiary grew as a result of those parked 75's, by 600 pilots.
4. l-UAL now has more than 600 extra pilots as a result.

These are all facts. Where is the conspiracy? The only conspiracy I see is that all the CAL pilots believe that because of 1 thru 4 above, that a new SLI snapshot should be taken, NEXT year. LOL

Who knows, it could happen. And monkeys could fly out of my..........