Actually its Pilot credit hours that drive jobs.

 

The "are you serious" came from you post that if it's not defined you can't use it. In its simplest form, if Marvin Mainliner was hired in 2000, furloughed for 5 years, he would have 5 years of longevity in 2010.

 

I am more interested in how the 3 arbs define it, and what they do with it.

 

I didn't say you couldn't USE it. That would/should generate an "Are you Serious" comment.

What I SAID was.......How can you base your list on something that no one seems to be able to define. Someone, somewhere has a definition of Longevity, otherwise you could not use it in determining the list, because you don't know what it is. How can you USE it, if you don't know what IT is?

I was asking for the L-UAL definition, so I could understand how it was used in determining the UAL ISL.

I do agree with your "simplest" form definition above, but again, I am not sure that is what was put forward in the UAL version of the ISL.

 

Cle,

I'm not exactly sure where it is. I don't see it as an abstract term but rather straight forward. How much time were your services applied at the mainline. Where it becomes muddied is its application towards the calex pilots. We shall see.

 

You are wasting your breath. Obviously most CAL pilots don't want longevity to count, so they try to claim its an undefinable value.

They gave it ZERO weight on their SLI which is how pilots at the merger date who had 13 years of uninterrupted service were stapled behind pilots like Yost and Watts who were not even on the property!!!

Just like they claimed that widebody flying is "undesirable" in their final brief and pilots want to be 737 Captains. Of course when UAL proposed a 747 fence the CAL side flipped.

WOW!!!

Just go 1 for 1 because that makes sense.

 

Lax, calm down DUDE !

If the longevity discussed here is applied, I don't believe you will get too much of an issue from the CAL side. A L UAL pilot hired in 1999 worked for mainline for 2 years before 911 furlough. (2 years Longevity) I guess some pilots were recalled in 2007/8 and were then furloughed again. Lets say 2 more years longevity.

So a 1999 hire that has been furloughed could receive 4 years longevity credit on SLI

That seems to be the definition discussed on the thread.

Of course the same rules need to be applied to both sides.

So considering LONGEVITY alone, AND at 100%, it is difficult to see how a 1999 UAL hire could go ahead of a 2005 CAL hire with 5 years longevity as of 2010 merger date.

The exact months of hire etc will skew this result either way.

I don't believe anyone thinks the ZERO longevity credit for non furlough UAL pilots will hold up.

Keep your 747 fence, not too much interest on the CAL side.

We'll see what comes down early September.

 

Many 99 hires were not furloughed until 2003, mid or late 2003. Recalled in late 2005, early 2006, actual years on property in 2010, 7 years for some 8. FWIW......

 

I think I see the misconception here.....

We have 1998 hires who were never furloughed, and had 12 years of longevity and when you look at a 2001 CAL hire who only has 5 years longevity because he was furloughed for 4 years.

FWIW UAL only used time that a pilot was not on furlough. Those numbers are shown in the UAL proposed seniority list.

Also, there are NO pilots currently flying who as of 2010 had less than 7 years of longevity. So the MOST JUNIOR UAL pilot as of 2010 has at least 7 years of longevity. Guess when those pilots were hired? 1999!! So the 1999 hires (most of them) have at least 7 years longevity. Even some furloughees had 7 years before the furlough.

Were you aware of that? Strictly based on longevity that's more than the 2001 hires who were furloughed and every pilot hired 2005 and beyond.

I think there is some misconception that 1996-1999 hires were all furloughed for 10 years and don't have longevity, just an earlier start date and that isn't true.

Also, if you go to the UAL proposed list and look around the 10,000 seniority number you will find UAL pilots with 10 years longevity paired with CAL pilots with only 5 and this was hailed as being UNFAIR by the CAL MC. Plus all those pilots were in the same stovepipe (narrowbody FO) for status and category.

So these 1999 hires didn't have 4 years longevity. As a matter of fact, UAL 2000 hires had between 4 and 5 years of longevity, and the late 2000 hires and 2001 hires are the ones twice furloughed with maybe 2 or 3 years longevity, which was still more than the CAL 2008 hires.

So I'm not saying I disagree with that, but I just think there is a disconnect between how much longevity these pilots actually have and where that landed them on the CAL proposed list.

 

LAX-
It's time to find a hobby, and let the chips fall where they may. The Tri-Panel has everything they're going get, now we wait.

No matter how hard you continue to try and change the mind's of many, I have a sneaking suspicion that your effort's are going to be unsuccessful in doing so. Drawing such "absolutes" on certain terms/outcomes will do nothing positive for your health in the meantime.

In case your looking for a Hobby, I paddled out the other day and saw something that closely resembled the follow......WX's prime, and it's a good time to partake.