|
Originally Posted by Probe
(Post 1436772)
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.......... CONSPIRACY ALERT - YouTube |
Originally Posted by paokgate4
(Post 1436408)
NEW faces in the next combined MEC is a must
Tell both ex UAL and ex CAL executive and local officers "Thanks but you got to go" Yep! Especially ORD and SEA on the United side. |
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
(Post 1436754)
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).
My real point/question is driven by the comments about LCAL pilots trying to "steal seniority" because from the viewpoint of much of our list, that's exactly what the LUAL proposal does. LUAL's proposed list moves many of us out of a status/category we held proir to the merger. I hold no ill will because of the proposal, the respective proposals are what they are and the board will make a decision. My bet is that at my seniority, the decision will be in the middle, meaning neither side held the high ground. |
Originally Posted by XHooker
(Post 1436882)
A career is more like a basketball game where the totality of the career (score at the end) is more important than who made the last shot (what you hold when you retire). Over an entire career for a new hire, more widebodies are better. However, more widebodies means longer to upgrade to captain once you reach WB FO. Once you hit NB captain, more widebodies are better again. The point isn't to get into specific numbers, just to point out the advantage of widebodies waxes and wanes depending on a variety of factors, chief among them being where you are on the list.
My real point/question is driven by the comments about LCAL pilots trying to "steal seniority" because from the viewpoint of much of our list, that's exactly what the LUAL proposal does. LUAL's proposed list moves many of us out of a status/category we held proir to the merger. I hold no ill will because of the proposal, the respective proposals are what they are and the board will make a decision. My bet is that at my seniority, the decision will be in the middle, meaning neither side held the high ground. By the "merger date", which one are you using to determine that LUAL pilots will push LCAL pilots out of their seats? I can see that being a concern for sure, but from our perspective there are 3 years of upgrades (some of them 2006 hires) who will not be flushed, and will continue to hold that seat even though they couldn't have dreamed of it in 2010. So certainly both sides have their frustrations and concerns. Anyway, looking forward to putting this in the rearview |
Originally Posted by Probe
(Post 1436703)
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. |
Originally Posted by Slammer
(Post 1436966)
As I understand, the arbitrators will consider everything within labor law, historical precedence and all the ALPA merger policy. They have the stick now, and to state what " they cannot reward, and precedent they cannot set", is pretty bold and absolute....don't you think!
|
Originally Posted by larryiah
(Post 1436968)
Exactly, and they have been trained to ignore conspiracy theories and paranoid rants about Pierce and Baron.
Larry - we know how you feel about supporting our troops in harms way. Would you like to give us your opinion of Snowden? |
Originally Posted by Slammer
(Post 1436966)
As I understand, the arbitrators will consider everything within labor law, historical precedence and all the ALPA merger policy. They have the stick now, and to state what " they cannot reward, and precedent they cannot set", is pretty bold and absolute....don't you think!
To presume that a proposition that addresses only 1/2 of one of the 3 tenets of ALPA merger policy and is even more extreme than the Nic award will be accepted or frankly, even considered, is patently absurd. This is much bigger than just this merger. There will be more. This ALPA merger/sli will set a precedent. I think it was a mistake for the CAL side to basically ignore ALPA merger policy. They basically gave ALPA National and the arbitrators the finger and argued that something outrageous was absolutely reasonable. Scott |
This board is nuts.
|
Originally Posted by Old UCAL CA
(Post 1437055)
This board is nuts.
Pretty much!! I think it's just people dealing with the stress of the ISL. If it makes someone feel better claiming they are right, and in a better position then so be it. The arbitration award will probably be a surprise to both sides. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:40 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands