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.