APC,

Thx for the info.

 

A flight attendant could make the same argument. They are on the company payroll. But a different job. So then they get hired as a pilot and state that they have longevity, but doesn't matter because they show up on the list when they get to the new job.

Flying for Express Jet is obviously a different job than flying for the mainline side because you can't fly each other's equipment.

I think the arbitrators are smart enough to figure this out. Its going to be easier for them to just say that instead of trying to sort out pilots who can't be moved from their relative position and somehow try to give them longevity credit, while pilots senior to them have less longevity. Same with flowbacks and furloughs. You aren't at the job if you are on flowback or furlough.

Plus the simple fact that one of the CAL MC members himself was quoted as saying that he was specifically told and had to sign something stating that he was NOT hired at CAL when hired at express jet, sort of defies the current self-serving argument, which will be outed completely in about 2 weeks.

Nothing against those guys. Its great for the to pass travel at the date they were hired at the feeder airline, but it isn't going to benefit them for major airline integration.

Not a chance.

 

For XJT pilots I think CALALPA simply ran into the merger policy that says "date of hire shall be the date upon which a pilot first appears upon the Company's payroll as a pilot" and had to go with that.

Yes. I think they'll figure out a reasonable and fair solution.

 

I could be wrong and hope I am for the ual guys sake, but I think this will go against us when the decision comes down from the panel.

 

The explanatory part of the arbitrators' decision will no doubt be fascinating reading. They aren't ALPA but they've been charged to come up with an SLI that follows ALPA's own rules and then withstand legal scrutiny.

- They can align the list so XJT pilots fall into place by their XJT DOH stating that their hands are tied because merger policy requires this, and the OTS hires get carried up to their seniority.

- They can not do this stating that merger policy really doesn't mean what LCAL says it means and put XJT near the OTS hires where they are now.

- Or, do they have the authority to reorder LCAL's list? Placing XJT at their XJT DOH and leaving OTS hires at their mainline DOH? In a kind of Solomonic compromise decision.

It will be interesting.

 

Nope.

They have wide latitude within the policy but reordering pre-merger lists is specifically not permitted.

"No integrated list shall be constructed which would change the order of the flight deck crew members on their own respective seniority lists."

 

Then why all the discussion? They can't reorder the list. I seriously doubt they would slide an entire section, xjet and street hires, to a greater longevity position. That would be giving xjet seniority that is highly questionable and the streets seniority they never had. A recipie for future litigation.

Seems like a moot point.

 

OR they'll give them just as much credit for bidding equipment and monthly schedules as CAL gave them on the list. Which is their mainline DOH.

Why else would he arbitrators themselves ask for mainline start dates for the CAL pilots from the company?

 

They could use that as a starting point but then give some weight to their XJT DOH, moving them incrementally up the list maybe 5 or 10 percent, but not all the way to their XJT DOH, depending also on what proportion of XJT pilots there were in each of those classes.

 

'Stovepiping' the longevity as LUAL proposed as part of the hybrid solution solves the list reordering problem. Each GROUP gets credit for the aggregate longevity they bring to the table...although each individual pilot might not be paired w/their actual longevity. The arbitrators simply decide whether to give longevity credit to the LCAL pilots for flow back/furlough time and CoEx time, then use those times to build the stove piped longevity list. Determining how much weight to give longevity is a separate matter. I would suggest that everyone read and get familiar with the longevity list methodology proposed by LUAL since it will almost certainly be used in the award.