757s to 737s
07-30-2013 | 04:50 PM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,253
Likes: 0
The BK judge doesn't set the work rules just the pot of money. UAL ALPA decided to coddle the WB guys at the direct expense of NB guys. It happen to an extent at CAL with Contract '02. I hope that BS stops in the future.
07-30-2013 | 04:55 PM
#52
Peace Love Understanding
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
From: Airbus
It would have been far more expensive to pay those pilots the same rate on the UAL side with all the extra costs to the company because of the UAL contract, plus be forced to continue their longevity pay increases every year, etc.
07-30-2013 | 05:36 PM
#53
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 308
Likes: 1
Not true. While they were given the UAL PAYRATES, they operated under the CAL contract for every other aspect. Plus when they ran out of pilots, they were able to bring in new hires who would be paid at year 1 pay.
It would have been far more expensive to pay those pilots the same rate on the UAL side with all the extra costs to the company because of the UAL contract, plus be forced to continue their longevity pay increases every year, etc.
It would have been far more expensive to pay those pilots the same rate on the UAL side with all the extra costs to the company because of the UAL contract, plus be forced to continue their longevity pay increases every year, etc.
07-30-2013 | 05:42 PM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
From: Captain
You missed a key point and that was each UAL pilot had a vote and the "JUMBO Lords" didn't have enough votes to pass that contract. In fact, it took the "Narrow Body" guys vote to pass the contract. The bankruptcy judge was never involved in that contract except as a default to arbitrate the contract had we not negotiated one. Still a good talking point, just not true.
07-30-2013 | 05:53 PM
#55
Peace Love Understanding
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
From: Airbus
The arbitrators know that the UAL contract was superior to the CAL one. So did management, which is why they put the flying where they did.
The arbitrators aren't going to award the CAL side for a lousy contract as being one of the equities brought to the merger.
07-30-2013 | 05:54 PM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,415
Likes: 0
From: B-777 left
I think it already stopped intrepid as the latest pos contract was passed by yes the Nb guys. Our company does a great job of targeting the group they think will get them the cheapest overall contract, hey it worked again. Congrats
07-30-2013 | 06:00 PM
#57
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 0
From: UAL retired
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.
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.
bump . . . because you guys never take the time to read and respond to cogent, fact based posts. You (both CAL and UAL APC posters) just work on your own agenda and never seek to reach a real conclusion.
You can start by reading and responding in detail and with counter factual evidence. Or Lax, Axl you can post supporting arguments without putting down the CAL pilots.
07-30-2013 | 07:33 PM
#58
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
If we stole you flying since 2010, let me ask this one question.
Why did your neg committee, sign a document that only protected 90% of your flying, and 100% of CAL flying? Does not make sense to me? Or if I am wrong someone please explain it to me.
Why did your neg committee, sign a document that only protected 90% of your flying, and 100% of CAL flying? Does not make sense to me? Or if I am wrong someone please explain it to me.
07-30-2013 | 07:49 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Yes. Our more expensive contract forced the flying to the cheaper side of the airline. Eventually, this benefited the CAL side more than the UAL side. Since we are all under the same contract now, UAL pilots didn't get to benefit as much.
The arbitrators know that the UAL contract was superior to the CAL one. So did management, which is why they put the flying where they did.
The arbitrators aren't going to award the CAL side for a lousy contract as being one of the equities brought to the merger.
The arbitrators know that the UAL contract was superior to the CAL one. So did management, which is why they put the flying where they did.
The arbitrators aren't going to award the CAL side for a lousy contract as being one of the equities brought to the merger.
If what you say is true, why are not the new hires going to the UAL side only to balance it out? The cost are exactly the same now.
If you take your rose colored glasses off you would see that CAL has the airplanes required to handle the growth. The UAL side does not.
07-30-2013 | 09:05 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 880
Likes: 0
Yes. Our more expensive contract forced the flying to the cheaper side of the airline. Eventually, this benefited the CAL side more than the UAL side. Since we are all under the same contract now, UAL pilots didn't get to benefit as much.
The arbitrators know that the UAL contract was superior to the CAL one. So did management, which is why they put the flying where they did.
The arbitrators aren't going to award the CAL side for a lousy contract as being one of the equities brought to the merger.
The arbitrators know that the UAL contract was superior to the CAL one. So did management, which is why they put the flying where they did.
The arbitrators aren't going to award the CAL side for a lousy contract as being one of the equities brought to the merger.
That is the word that has been put out but never really vetted. It is this simple. L-UAL could not handle the oncoming 737s. Pre-SLI tied the company's hands and would have caused double training. The costs to have a stand up L-UAL 737 program was just too much. PIs come and get qual'ed on 737 to teach only L-UAL pilots and recalls. Move sims up to Denver and etc... In 2010 you had almost 600 pilots overstaffed, CAL was short, even before merger, by 200ish. Once this all went down, the decision was easy to see who would get the training and where the hiring would go. The company could care less which side except for the lowest costs to bring pilots on. Yes C 02' first year pay did help with the decision making but that was a known short lived item. It was training costs and current 2010 abilities that drove the decision. Really simple when you know the facts.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
