No one lost more than 3% of their relative senority on the final list. given that you ended up in the 91% of the new list I will assume you were around a fall of 07 hire. If that is in fact true then you actually gained over 3% on the new list. (The biggest winners in the ISL...I will also say the middle of the CAL list were the big loser with around -3%) Using the CAL 2013 list with all the L-UAL guys on it to skew the data is along with JPoS is done. The above data is from the Arbs list.

So many problems with this post...

The snapshot date was 2010, so having furloughed UAL guys flying at CAL had NO IMPACT on the decision (since it happened AFTER that date). JP has you guys so brainwashed that the last 3 years of activity matters that you can't be brought to understand the truth (anything after 2010 did not count!)

The CAL pilots did not offer jobs to our furloughees. The company realized that we are now operating as UAL, so obviously calling UAL pilots first made the most sense for management.

It seems like you have a problem with ALPA merger policy. Maybe Brucia will go change it again...

So let's use the 2010 snapshot. A UAL 1999 hire was at 100%. If CAL can't use the new hires over the years since 2010 then UAL can not count the furloughed guys to bump up their relative seniority.

See how this works.

Is that what the arbitrators determined?

Follow the merger policy. 2010 is the date and the furloughees had longevity.

Stop trying to use "other factors" to effect SLI. It didn't work out so well for your leadership.

This whole notion of CAL hired out of the goodness of their heart is silly. Read the TPA..It stated that if either carrier were to hire pilots that it would hire the respective carriers furloughs first before hiring off the street. It was a two way street. The hiring happened to fall to the CAL side.

All of us....No need to flame guys on either pilot group that believe, there careers were negatively impacted by the arbs decision. It will impact a significant number for a long time. History of mergers tells us that it is very seldom good and risky for the bottom of the list. This award is no different. To, my CAL brethren, the UA MC presented a better case for the list and it is done....so I hope we do not have guys that blame L-UA pilots for the results of this award, because that is beyond wrong and does nothing for ALL of us moving forward. To my L-UA brethren...the embers are still hot for many....i suspect many of you can remember, not too long ago, how you felt when you saw your career,potential finances, QOL and job security get outsourced through no fault of our own. I know CAL guys that are feeling that way now. What I would ask of all of us, is to focus on the FUTURE and not the past. WE all must accept this ruling, put down our arrows and arrogance, acknowledge that L-UA and L-CAL past must die so that a new United pilot group can grow and prosper. A house divided cannot stand....it's time to unify...it's on our shoulders now

Obviously not, but you get my point about losing, gaining, or staying the same of your "relative" seniority on the snapshot date of 2010.

A 1999 hire at 100% in 2010 and still at that level 3 days ago now in the 70% range and a furloughed pilot in the 100+% range in 2010 and still there 3 days ago going into the 80% range is a huge gain. By no means did they "stay relatively the same" % wise.

Relative seniority isn't in the policy.

A UAL 1999 hire had 11 years of longevity. A CAL 2007 hire had 3.

Plus some of those furloughees had as many as 7 years longevity, which is why they were RIGHTFULLY integrated with credit for that, moving them into the active pilot ranks.

So imagine 2 companies merge. At company A the very last 100 pilots have 30 years longevity and they get furloughed one day before the merger, while at company B the very last 100 pilots get hired the day before the merger. So on the snapshot date we have 100 furloughed pilots from company A with 30 years longevity and at company B we have 100 pilots with 1 day longevity.

ALPA policy says longevity must be considered so how do you treat the 100 furloughed pilots from company A.


ALPA policy changed to include longevity. United furloughed pilots had no Category or Status but some had a lot more longevity than the most junior Continental pilots. Should the arbitrators simply have ignored longevity? Is that really your answer?

I am aware of that. My point is people saying I only gained 1 or 2% or lost 1% or stayed the same relative seniority. When this clearly is not true.

There are 2 other parts to the alpa merger policy that clearly were left out of the award :)