Know the situation ! PBS builds the lines NOT ME! The only way to work less, is to call in sick! I am OUT of sick leave......coincidence??

J,

I'll apologize for him. By "me" he meant personally. Continental Airlines was directly responsible for EAL's demise. The SCAB's are the lowest of the low and attributed to a great airline hitting the crapper. They should be shunned. I was not at CAL at the time (I'm 41) but as a representative of CAL, I certainly know the history. Frank Lorenzo doesn't run CAL anymore. "Frank Lorenzo" now runs all the airlines. I.E. All management is untrustworthy to take care of their most important employees. We as pilots need to keep that in mind and look out after each other. I look forward to flying with you all.

Well jay here's your quote that set me off

To me that read like someone that at least financially wishes he was flying 89 hours/month even though others are furloughed. If you are willing to bid min line and actually fly it if awarded then I am in the wrong. Sorry for your pain, but I got plenty of buds on the 767 in EWR and IAH that are in the same boat your are from UAL Jumbos arrivals.

I doubt it will be recognized, but the point of this thread was to disparage CAL for our Jurassic work rules. Ah meanwhile UAL had 95 hour narrowbody lines. Sorry if I roll my eyes at the irony of getting talked down to...:rolleyes:

I find it quite ironic that many of the CAL pilots are taking up the plight of UAL's furloughed pilots when at the same time they want to throw them under the ISL bus.

Why screw them on a monthly basis when you can give them a single epic f'ing they'll feel for the rest of their careers?!

Nice avatar :-)

Keep feeding off your prejudice.......

Just imagine the potential scene in a year or so; 2005 Capt & 1998 F/O.

Leg 1. "So, did you get the outside?", "No"
Leg 2. "So, did you get the outside?", "No"
Leg 3. "So, are you going to get the outside?", "No"
Leg 4. "So, are you going to get the outside?, ever?", "No"

Imagine the scene a a couple of years from now.
Chief Pilot to FO. Enjoy your new career

So, who's the captain and who's the FO in this conversation?

Yeah just report the FO and get him fired - major FAIL.

Nice. You guys ever hear of Pro Standards? Or is running to the CP your preferred course of action?

Just rolling a grenade under the door. And an impersonal one at that.

Why would a pilot that could barely hold reserve on a 319 in 2010 take issue with being an FO for a captain who was a senior line holder on the 737 in 2010?

No, we really do not have pro stands. In case you missed it we were force fed scab mentality by Jay Pierce who is our unquestioned Supreme Overlord. The only way we have hope is through reeducation courtesy of UAL union fighters that clearly defeated all attacks from management this last decade...

Senior lineholder in 2010?

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

Bring on da list!

Sorry. That was a typo on my part. I meant to say that the cal 2005 pilot was a senior FO in 2010. Why should he be junior to a 1998 ual pilot that can barely hold reserve in 2010?

James,

Wasn't there a pilot on here recently stating that if you didn't gladly cater to his requests, he'd see to it that you would be looking at the models in the Chief Pilot's office? Motivation on the basis if fear provides for unintended consequences for those who utilize that method.

The 1998 pilot has far more longevity. More than twice as much.

That's why merger policy was changed.

That's why he will be senior.

So why were 05 Cal hires merged with Ual 98 hires on the UAL proposal?

You seriously think they will move down from the original UAL proposal? Which would mean the ARBS improved the UAL proposal for the UAL side, and completely ignored every facet of the CAL merger committee's presentations. I'll give you one thing...you are one seriously optimistic person. Good luck with that.

UAL hired 1,000 pilots in 1998. That's a large spread. Some of them will end up with 2005 hires, probably those hired later in the year. Some probably end up with 2001 hires.

The UAL proposal is a FRAMEWORK. The UAL list is based on 50/50 longevity vs. status and category. The CAL list is just "1 for 1", which is stupid.

Based on the 2010 CAL list and 2010 CAL staffing numbers, Narrowbody (ie 737) FO stovepipe is everyone hired 2005 and later. That means that means that those guys have less status and category than many 1998 hires, as well as less longevity than ALL 1998 - 2001 hires. So what would you expect the arbitrators to do? How can you bonus them more status and category and longevity?

So if the Arbs say, Lets give 60% longevity and 40% status and category, the list will shift. Better for the bottom of UAL, worse for top of UAL. Maybe they say 45% longevity 55% status and category. At least UAL gave them a tool to analyze the 2010 lists and see where it should go.

I promise you the DAL NWA list would have looked MUCH DIFFERENT if longevity was a factor of merger policy, which it wasn't. They just used status and category. This panel will likely use both of them. It was added so it will be used.

So they aren't going to "improve" the UAL list, just make changes to it.

The CAL proposal is a joke and I think we all know that.

Unless status is "airline" and category is "pilot" then yes, just 1 for 1. Even at the hearing on of the CAL witnesses said "Category and Status isn't defined in the policy"

So there you have it....

I was responding to one of the guys on your team who threatened walking into the CP's office as his response. I'm not sure how twisting my words to fit your largely inaccurate commentary validates it. But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out. If bored while sitting in your crew rest seat in row 30, take a look past grievance lists from sCAL and compare them to the ones at sUAL.

WRT to just how much of a bag we are at UAL, I would gladly take our post bankruptcy work rules and contract over yours. Hourly rates are but one small sliver of the compensation package and QOL. That point and numerous examples of how your flight ops and training have been overseen by scabs has been detailed repeatedly over the years on this and other forums. At the end of the year, you worked far more days than I, yet only brought home a little more. You worked to FARs and min rest etc. But if you just want to thump your chest and compare W2's, be my guest and enjoy your time with the CP.

Where does Career expectations fit in to the above scenario? does it even cross your mind that the ARBS may use "to include, but not limited to" latitude given to them by the new policy? What status is furloughed?

You are making a broad assumption that longevity will be weighted that heavily. Do you at least agree that a pilot hired at CAL in 2005, even stove-piped was a senior narrow body FO in 2010, where a UAL pilot hired years before that CAL pilot was furloughed. Which means that CAL longevity while measured in time is less, but in value is greater...in fact much greater since that CAL pilot actually was/is working.

I've said all along that this will play out within 2% of active pilot relative seniority. Some will fare better than others.

Personality issues - Pro Standards is fine.

Beligerant attitude towards performing a required safety inspection is another matter. Would have been removed from the trip after the first leg if I were the Capt.

I've been screwed by mergers and ALPA more than most on these pages but still perform my duties to the best of my abilities. May get screwed again with this SLI but will still perform my duties in a professional manner.

We do have a good bunch of guy's on our pro stands committee, the problem is the hypothetical guy who has had numerous cases within the pro stands ranks. I've found that if a guy is so bad that he needs a pro stands heart to heart, he's usually had several of them and could care less what his fellow pilots think. ***** comes to mind, and there's not much anyone can do about it, including CP's or pro stands.

Its a sad fact that ALPA while protecting mostly good guys that have unfortunate circumstances arise in their career's, also has to protect a few ***** within the ranks...we have em and I know you guys do to.

absolutely! well said

All good points.

You are wrong about one thing. I didn't "heavily" weight longevity. I think it will be close to the same weight for "status and category". Which is the UAL proposal. Equal weight. Arbs will do either more, less, or same.

UAL included all the furloughed pilots (UAL and CAL) in the "furloughed" status and category. They were placed below all the pilots in the narrowbody FO status. The only reason some of them ended up with active pilots is because they have more longevity. Some as many as 7 years.

Here is a breakdown from CAL submitting seniority list plus the CAL 2010 Staffing roster. This is a STOVEPIPE method. Doesn't care WHO holds what. Its as if every bid their highest position. (767 means 757 and 767 fleet positions)

777 Captain = 211 positions. Most junior pilot #211 hired 9/21/1981
767 Captain = 603 positions. Most junior pilot #814 hired 7/1/1985
737 Captain = 1,253 positions. Most junior pilot #2,067 hired 1/3/1990
777 F/O = 440 positions. Most junior pilot #2,507 hired 2/4/1998
767 FO = 839 positions. Most junior pilot #3,346 hired 5/3/2005
737 FO = 1,292 positions. Most junior pilot #4,638 hired 11/12/2007.

Everyone else junior to that essentially furloughed or very close.

So 2005 hires were "senior narowbody FOs." Actually no one junior to a 1990 hire can hold Captain at CAL on a strict stovepipe method as of 2010. All based on CAL MC supplied list and CAL staffing data published by CAL.

Also remember this. CAL has 275 737s. UAL has 152 Airbus. So CAL has FAR MORE positions available in that status and category. More slots in the bottom of the list for CAL pilots to occupy because you brought more of those to the table. So you've got lots of 737 FO jobs to fill, lots more than the UAL Airbus 320s and 319s. So yes, more CAL pilots in the bottom of the list (not counting furloughs)

The UAL list did have everyone within 5% of their 2010 standing. It has been ridiculed as OUTRAGEOUS. Much of the people on here are quoting their 2013 relative percentage which is skewed because they are counting UAL pilots as if they are on the bottom of their list, which they WEREN'T in 2010. So the bottom CAL pilot in 2010 is magically not 100% on the list, but he's somehow 83% on the list. And when he gets put back at 100% he complains he "lost" 17%, which he didn't. Those pilots aren't really junior to him.

So there is going to be a tradeoff between status and category and longevity. Which means there will be furloughees placed in front of active pilots because they have more longevity. Far more in some cases.

At least the merger policy says it has to be included.

Absolutely wrong. Your definition of belligerent might fall into the category of a personality conflict between two crew members when viewed from an impartial observer. The arbiter of that definition should not be the chief pilot but rather pro standards. If pro standards feels the problem cannot be solved on their level and if warrented, then yes it could be elevated.

It seemed to me he didn't even know the structure of Pro Standards and how it works. To UALs credit they empowered the Pro Standards group at the MEC to deal with the "run of the mill" personality/SOP issues between crew members. So when it DID rarely get kicked up to the company they knew that attempts were made in good faith to set the pilot back onto a better path.

Don't ever forget that the bottom third (2005+ hires) of the CAL list will gain over 3 times as many wide body FO and CAP positions than their original career expectation had. Not only that, because of their relative youth (by a wide margin), the bottom third of the list will be the ONLY pilots flying those positions down the road. This for many years before they retire. Clearly a nice windfall.

If an SLI process is supposed to consider career expectations between now and retirement and shouldn't the consideration go both ways to include harm and windfall in the overall solution? Or, perhaps its minimize harm and gloss over the windfalls?

The CAL team nerfed this idea because they said their pilot group didn't like the wide body flying. They called it being "trapped in Europe away from home". They tried to paint a picture of it being a negative. Despite the unexplainable fact that you have to have been in the top 15% of the CAL seniority list to hold 777 Captain. I guess those guys are sacrificing themselves for the group. Of course when UAL proposed a 747 fence for 5 years the attorney for CAL "flipped".

They said flying the 737 was more desirable because you could do "turns".

But you are correct, all CAL pilots GAIN time as widebody Captains no matter how the list is out together because there are 3x more of them now. But don't worry because they won't be bidding them not wanting to be "trapped in Europe" or "trapped in Sydney".

I would not want to be constantly working to and fro those Godless countries either. Long, boring flights, often back side of clock, just a few landings a month. Have you seen what these guys look like? Grandpa and Grandma, with Santa Claus guts. If I get sick on the road or have a family emergency to deal with, I just walk over to the American Airlines counter and go home. It's that easy. If I want to visit these places, it will be on my time, in a 1st class seat, with people I want to be with. And I won't take 10 yrs. off my life doing it. You can have it. I'd rather just fly around the U.S.A., God's Country.

That's a personal preference. But your merger committee tried to say it was "undesirable flying" even though the pilots at your airline show otherwise by their bidding patterns. Also, asking for a 5 year fence for all 787 flying in all domiciles does not represent that either.

Its like saying "We don't want, and don't like that widebody flying. But we don't want anybody else other than us doing it."

Its really obvious that's a terrible self-serving argument.

Don't forget, replacing our 767-300s with 787s.

Actually I will pass on fatigued W2 comparisons and trips to a CP that I have never met. In the years ahead, I will be rolling my eyes at all assertions of the superiority of the UAL pilot group. Sarcastic remarks that we run to management whenever we feel threatened is a wonderful example of this. And James I've worked on Pro Stands and think our committee is well run.

Quite frankly I think both our sides have SUCKED for a LONG time. The fact that we have slugged it out like two pathetic drunks for the past 4 years indicates that our mutual status will not be changing anytime soon. Next to DAL and at this rate AMR, we are collectively chumps.

We aren't the ones making the remarks about running to the flight office.

No Kidding Lax!! I don't understand what you wanted our committee to do for US(CAL)! Should they have said "how lucky we are to get all this wide body flying?" Thats not there job!! I would have been disappointed if they didn't paint the type of flying we did in the best light!! (Just like your comm. did for you guys(UAL)) You are right, when you say the wide body flying goes more senior at Cal than the narrow body. However, I don't think it's anywhere close to the seniority gap that it is at UAL.(Just guessing, not trying to state fact!) There is a HUGE cultural difference between cal and ual in reference to wide-body to narrow-body flying!! I've been told by at least 5 different ual pilots that it's like flying at 2 different airlines. (wide-body airline and narrow body airline) Nothing wrong with that it's just different than what cal pilots have experienced over the yrs. We used to go by longevity pay just like ups until contract 97'. So, many of the senior pilots did fly smaller planes to get better schedule.(Our flying culture) That culture is still there to some extent. I honestly can tell you I am going to stay on the 737 for many yrs for reasons that fit ME!! I don't expect you or anyone else to understand why. But, I think more cal guys would understand than ual guys and neither side is right or wrong just different!! I believe ual's sli comm. along with ual pilots harp on heavy flying since it is a "perk" pay and prestige wise! ( I think that's a SMART strategy and would be disappointed if my Comm. didn't use it!!) You're mixing apples/oranges here. p.s.- I could have held 767 on last few bids and 2 guys that live in my neighborhood would be top 15 777 capts at cal. Both are very senior 737 capts!! (1 is about to retire!!:() None of us are interested in that type flying!! (Just our opinions!)

L-UAL pilots have no choice but to build up the "wide body" fallacy because they gave up all of their 737 when they voted to relax scope. So, naturally their airline would be "jumbo" heavy. Of course, now they are trying to regain all of that lost progression by screaming that "longevity" is the end all while forgetting that the 3 factors mentioned in the ALPA merger policy is a means to an end. The point of the policy is NOT that the final list be composed soley by heavily weighing any of the much preached about "3 factors". The entire goal is a "fair and equitable list". Arbitrators can compare size of airplane or size of underwear if they want, as long as they come up with a "fair and equitable list". In the end the crux of this SLI weighs on if the arbitrators feel that placing unemployed pilots of a shrinking airline in front of employed pilots with solid expectations as "fair and equitable".

Please remind me how many RJs came on the property after the guppies were parked?

LUAL parked the entire fleet of 737's and replaced the flying with RJ's AFTER the pilots gave up scope. Parking of the 737's was all about surviving. This whole "parked for the merger" talk is missing the FACT that l-UAL pilots had essentially given the company the green light to outsource flying.

In all honesty, I was truly hoping that LUAL pilots would have been the more adamant group about holding the line on scope in these last rounds of negotiations since they saw their careers decimated by incompetent management and scope relaxation...but I digress.