Originally Posted by picaro (Post 1442192)

Ya know what guys, there is no talking to them. How about this well use the 2010 list, give 100% credit to the furloughs, cal pilots can only fly the guppy. And unicorns and ponies in every ual pilots driveway on sli. Is that cool?

Originally Posted by SEDPA (Post 1442135)

Good, at least we agree that it wasn't the CAL pilot's fault, and parking the 73s wasn't a pre-merger rightsizing event.



Wow, I am suprised ... more of this total BS about it being someone elses fault ... you and your pilots voted in, or allowed (BK) a contract that didn't have any protections w/regards to the merger, period. Go ask your MEC why they stalled? Oh, that's right, the CAL side was supposed to stand silent, and assist in the rape and pilage of OUR EQUITY ... I guess we didn't get or understand the memo (not suprised since we aren't brain surgeons) ... I'm glad my MEC fought hard for me and the rest of the CAL pilots ... your plight rests soley with your MEC, and your contract ... in the end, whoever and whatever transpired, transpired because of your pre UPA contract. Pout, shout, and kick all you want ... your 2 pair bluff was called by a better hand. The CAL contract had the block hour protections, and CAL had airplane orders ... UAL contract didn't have the protections, and didn't have orders ... why then are you so suprised that the CAL side hired 600ish since MAD??? Why didn't your MEC prevent this??



Our MC and MEC did not hide ANYTHING ... where did the arbs get the supposed "smoking gun" from? NOT CAL ALPA. We played our hand, as did your side. I've said this over and over ... I think most of the equities that we banter about on this board really wash out to favor neither side, except for the 1437 and the 600ish positions created since MAD. I have already stated that I don't think the CAL proposal crosses the fair and equitable threshold mandated by ALPA merger policy ... and neither does the UAL proposal. In the end, the arbs list, by definition, will be the definition of fair and equitable. My guess is that it will find middle ground between the two proposals. Oh, have fun with that career/lifelong grudge ... it will probably mean I move up a number pre-maturely.

Originally Posted by LAX Pilot (Post 1442186)

Then why did the CAL attorneys freak when the Zeus database showed 4,500 years of longevity that didn't exist. It also showed pilots furloughed in 2001 that somehow didn't get reported as well.

Well it didn't work and the arbitrators had to go to the company to get the correct info, specifically asking for CAL pilot time spent at MAINLINE.

If they weren't going to use it and didn't care, they wouldn't have personally gone out of their way to go get it.

Once they got it, they saw fit to end the hearings a week early.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1442196)

What's going to be really interesting is seeing how well LAX pilot and the like handle disappointment...

Originally Posted by Maxepr1 (Post 1442238)

I was told to get ready for a lawsuit that will last your whole career.

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking (Post 1442245)

Nothing personal, it's just business. Right?

Originally Posted by SEDPA (Post 1442250)

If you want your furloughees to instantly gain 20 - 30 % bidding power, why don't you give it to them? I would gladly give them 2, 3, maybe 5%, but the UAL proposal steals 30% from me ... And then you guys get angry at me because I just didn't give it to you, and you tell me it's my fault that I got robbed, beaten and raped.

Your pre MAD contract, parts of which are still in effect today, didn't protect your flying. Ours did. You have no right to any "gains" we got under our old contract, paid for with concessions we made in '02', since MAD, period. To lay claim to any of the 600ish jobs is akin to stealing from me. Same logic applies to placing your 1437 on equal bidding power percentage as the bottom 1437 on our list ... You are stealing from me again. I get it that longevity will count for something ... But not 30%.

Originally Posted by SEDPA (Post 1442250)

To lay claim to any of the 600ish jobs is akin to stealing from me.

Originally Posted by cadetdrivr (Post 1442302)

:eek:

Absolute and utter BS.

It has already been demonstrated during the hearings that ALL of the "net" increases in total pilots at UCH since merger closing (Oct. 1, 2010) have been at pre-merger UAL domiciles.

sCAL has actually reduced the number of crews based in IAH and EWR which were virtually replaced simultaneously 1:1 by sUAL crews. Meanwhile the assignment of sCAL crews in pre-merger UAL bases represent ALL of the so-called "growth" of ~600 pilots since the merger.

I can't believe anybody can claim with a straight face that sCAL would have seen bases in all of those locations and "own" 100% of the jobs created subsequent to the merger despite the fact the the company was operating as one corporate entity, with a single operating certificate, and with the same name painted on all the aircraft.

And if the claim is presented that this is a result of pre-merger sCAL aircraft orders, don't forget that both CAL and UAL were positioning their fleet composition to account for the post-merger fleet. For example, CAL cancelled its remaining 777 orders in August, 2010 prior to closing.

If CAL receives 100% "credit" for its pre-merger order book, it only stands that UAL deserves 100% credit for its substantially larger existing jumbo fleet as well as its larger widebody orders.

Of course, that would be silly since the whole boondoggle has already been a single entity for three years now. Even CAL's own expert stated during the SLI hearings that UCH's marketing department has been running it as one big airline since the merger closed.

Originally Posted by SEDPA (Post 1442309)

Riddle me this ... If the flying was your flying at sometime in the past, and was out of your hubs, then why are you not doing that flying? ... because it's not your flying ... Your contract gave it away ... Blame anyone you want, but your contract didn't protect that flying, PERIOD!