Nope, I was responding to you. Many cal pilots think the proposals will be split and consider that fair. I do not think it will be split. I responded that even if that fantasy proved to be the result, most United pilots would take offense since one proposal is based on policy and the other is a moonshot.

Perils of their making? Gmab

Aye, the old "attitude adjustment." What a joke.

Special,
In the end BOTH sides presented their case using the "policy" as they felt it applied. When it's all said and done the arbs. will decide how the policy applies in our situation. Taking offense to either presentation is really unjustified and achieves nothing but anger and bitterness. We have all agreed to live and die by the policy (which includes the procedure of arbitration), so how can one justify offense at the end result of that very policy?

Regardless, as angry as I get from some of the attitudes I see on the forums I realize that holding any sort of animosity towards LUAL pilots is unjustified and really just hurts us all. Bottom line, hopefully the list will be out soon and we could all move on and become a unified group. Good luck and hopefully with retirements and a growing, profitable airline we all will not even "feel" the results of the ISL (if that makes sense).

I appreciate your tone, but your list is nowhere near current merger policy. Best of luck.

A one for one status seniority merge resulting in a staple of nearly 3000 pilots is concurrent with alpa merger policy? It's bad enough your merger committee proposed it, it's worse when cal pilots say it is merger policy and just business.

Time for an Arrogant Bastard.

At MAD, CAL had already announced a bid with positions for all furloughed pilots. At MCD, every furloughed pilot had a recall letter ... there are no CAL pilots in furloughed status in the CAL proposal.

I thought L-UAL was a jumbo/widebody/international airline ... what did L-UAL have in common with P/M/C that would make that award relevant to this integration?

If you want to use this as your fairness barometer, let's trade places ... I will move back over 25% from today's relative if the UAL proposal is adopted ... explain it away anyway you want, but it doesn't change the reality of losing that much bidding power. If you think that is fair, you try it.

SEDPA,

If by a few you mean 100% of the LUAL pilot group then I will concede that you are correct in your definition of "a few".

To think if the jcba was rejected, you would be complaining in the spring of 2014 that you were being "moved back" 35%. Am I correct?

That's misleading. You are counting pilots below you that are already on the UAL list. Just look at the percentages back in 2010 when the merger happened.

The SLI decision is going to balance the scale back to fair, which it hasn't been since the merger happened 3 years ago.

ST..
Both SEDPA and Mitch Rapp05 wrote what I've been writing for a while. So no need to rehash.

I will add this. Our (LCAL) Merger Committee had a few really smart guys involved in not only our proposal, but past SLI's. There had to be a reason why they proposed what they did.
I have to believe that they knew what they were doing and that their reasoning for the proposal would not hurt the Continental Pilot Group.
Maybe it was just bad luck that we went first vs. you guys!

I have read all the material on the case. Interesting reading.
Agreed with alot, disagreed with some.
Even went to DC to observe and put faces to the names (just one day~).

In a few weeks (hopefully), it will be what it will be.

Motch