Nope. Only DH leg for IRO, ie under 8 hour block leg to Europe. The IRO did not work the cockpit for 50% pay. And the 50% DH became 75% i believe and eventually was gone by early 2007.

Lets talk about some of the wonderous work rules the UAL NB guys got slammed by in the last BK contract. I mean the ones that required the mid contract fix. Lots of buds of mine on the 320 were disgusted that ALPA hosed them so that JUMBO lords like LAX wouldn't be so badly hurt.

 

If you chose to read the facts correctly, it was 2007.....Something that has happened a lot more "recently" than the 'other' carrier in which you have been comparing/contrasting (albeit, funny at times) over the last several months.

Bottom line.....Yes it's "happened".....Unlike what you alluded to earlier in one of your several, erroneously slanted posts.

Just looking at the Aug Staffing on CCS......Of the roughly 470 FO seats currently on the B777 at L-CAL, there are approx. 430 of those FO's are OUTSIDE the 1000 spot (junior to the system number) on the L-CAL system seniority list.

Example: Pilot 1001----->Junior - comprises roughly 430 of the 470-ish seats that are currently staffed.

Simple math tells me that approx. 91%+ of the FO's currently on the B777 are junior to the 1000 spot on the L-CAL seniority list. Not everyone that is staffed in the 430 seats can hold the B737 Capt seat either.

Capiche?

BTW.....You find yourself a Hobby yet????

 

777 captains! Hahaha fo!

 

So basically the biggest ongoing complaint I have heard from my CAL friends (who thankfully do NOT frequent APC) is the sincerely held belief that CAL was going to grow with or without the merger. So I thought I'd lay down some simple facts. What's funny is that I have no doubt the CAL brethren here on APC will view said facts as staunch proof that their growth since 2010 is all their doing and was coming regardless of the merger whilst the UAL brethren will most certainly disagree.

Fact 1: TPA exhibit A.




Which clearly shows a potentially large increase in 737 planes as there were only 32 remaining 737-500s to be retired.


Fact 2 from CAL 2009 Annual Report:


Fact 3 the current UAL Fleet Plan:





Fact 4: Since May of 2010 the combined UAL fleet has gone from 694 planes to a planned 692 planes for the end of 2013, but the UAL fleet has seen a net decrease and the CAL fleet has seen a net increase.

Fact 5: CAL 767 flying has diminished because they lost 10 out of 26 planes.

Fact 6: CAL has a 787 to replace it's retired 767.

Fact 7: CAL 737s are flying 64% of the flying that UAL 737s did in 2008.





So why do you bring this up brethren Joe?

I'm glad you ask.


Because, it has been hypothesized that the CAL MEC raised CAL pilot expectations overly high and as a result have created a sense of entitlement and possible disappointment for a long time to come.

To me the facts show that any expectation of "organic growth" at CAL absent a merger have been shown by reality and history to have been zero.

 

The so called "JUMBO lords" didn't have enough votes to vote in the bankruptcy contract. But it is a good talking point for you guys, just not true.

 

You mean shrinking every year since 2006 then "magically" starting to grow when merged with United in 2010?

Oh wait, the merger didn't happen until 2013 and CAL just naturally expanded into DEN, LAX, and ORD because they would have done that all along.

And all this time UAL had 3,000 "extra" pilots and for some reason only 1,400 of them are on furlough. I guess management just wanted to have "spare" pilots for cancellations.

The other one I love is that all the extra UAL bases aren't necessary and make UAL have extra pilots.

So UAL has 7 bases. LAX, SFO, SEA, DEN, ORD, JFK, IAD. <--- Deemed too many by CAL Merger Committee which is why UAL has extra pilots.

CAL has 7 bases. GUM, EWR, CLE, IAH, ORD, DEN, LAX. <--- somehow with CAL they don't have too many pilots.

 

So why then has CAL added 500ish jobs since MAD, but pre JCBA, and why didn't UAL get those jobs?

 

UAL added those jobs. They put them on the CAL side because it was CHEAPER!

Total costs on the CAL side were less.

 

Because, it has been hypothesized that the CAL MEC raised CAL pilot expectations overly high and as a result have created a sense of entitlement and possible disappointment for a long time to come.

Joe,
In all fairness, the same can be said for the "arrogance and entitlement because we are better than the scab airline" sentiment that your brethren frequently portray on this website. If we were that worried about disappointment then why haven't we started a legal find drive to fight this in court like some UAL have?

I was pleased with the CAL fleet plan go forward separately and now to see we will be fewer airplanes than currently doesn't make me happy.


Also, why weren't you on the negotiating team since you have a flair for presenting your facts as the real and only facts and thus it must be true?

Sept. can't come soon enough in my mind.

 

Really? Most of those hired between MAD and the UPA were payed as if they were recalled to L-UAL ... and more to the point, every one could have been recalled to L-UAL and the cost to the company would have been just about the same. Take a another guess.