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?