![]() |
Originally Posted by Shrek
(Post 1476348)
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
It's done - move on. |
It looks like there say a lot of weirdness on the cal list before this. How do 79/80 hires at cal start off junior to 84 hires at Cal?
I know a late 89 hire at ual that went from 28% to 30%. Not bad, and better than it would have been under the Ual proposal. That person is senior to the 79 hire which won't make him happy, but it looks like he's been unhappy for a long time before this even started. |
Originally Posted by Skybo
(Post 1476335)
Please explain how an LUAL 89 hire trumps an 87 hire at CAL? With what ALPA no doubt paid the arbitrators to completely ignore what CAL brought to the table, I think I'm going to be an arbitrator. I can be as crooked as the next guy. ALPA, in my opinion, saw the writing on the wall. Lose the LUAL pilots, lose the combined group and the millions they bring to the coffers. Better to appease the larger group.
|
Yep I am a 1997 hire who is slotted in between two LCAL 1996 hires with an LCAL 2001 hire senior to us just ten guys up the list. Relatively speaking I am within 2% of we're I was before.
|
Originally Posted by Skybo
(Post 1476350)
Yeah...you're right. I'm over it, till an LUAL type gets in my face and gloats.
Lighten Up Francis. |
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
(Post 1476353)
Because the 87 hire at LCAL was his EXPRESS hire date. Many of the LCAL pilots whose DOH are listed are showing CALEX hire dates instead of their mainline start date. Example: If you look up JP, he shows a 1989 DOH and is below a 1992 LUAL pilot. However, JP did not turn the wheel of a mainline airplane until 1997. Thus he REALLY is slotted next to someone 5 years senior to him.
|
Originally Posted by Airhoss
(Post 1476383)
Yep I am a 1997 hire who is slotted in between two LCAL 1996 hires with an LCAL 2001 hire senior to us just ten guys up the list. Relatively speaking I am within 2% of we're I was before.
|
Originally Posted by Skybo
(Post 1476572)
Wrong...I was hired in March of 1987. I was not at CALEX or any other airline. Please explain again.
So what you, as a 1987 hire LCAL pilot, were advocating for was DOH. Fine my me!!! You'll get lynched by the bottom 60% of your own list but who cares right? Ladder up!!! |
Originally Posted by LAX Pilot
(Post 1476251)
Today's date. They are all doing this. Plus that counts the new hires and UAL pilots who should be senior to them and doesn't count them now.
They won't talk about direct 2010 % because we are all within a couple percentage and they'd have nothing to complain about. Some of my friends aren't happy and are saying they are losing seniority, but maybe I am just more objective than many are being. Compare apples to apples, not apples to Harleys. I crunch their numbers and they just don't like the answer I give them. This is done....it's time to move on. Am I really the only L-CAL pilot not upset or mad about the new list? |
Originally Posted by EWRflyr
(Post 1476657)
I haven't commented on the results of the SLI on the forums until now, but not all of us are doing this. I went back and looked at my previous seniority of L-CAL only pilots and compared it with today's new list of ALL United pilots (not including the constructive notice/new-hire pilots). I lost nothing and ended up with a little more than 3% bump in relative seniority. Of course if you include the CNPs, that percentage change is greater, but that isn't a good comparison to where we all were when this started.
Some of my friends aren't happy and are saying they are losing seniority, but maybe I am just more objective than many are being. Compare apples to apples, not apples to Harleys. I crunch their numbers and they just don't like the answer I give them. This is done....it's time to move on. Am I really the only L-CAL pilot not upset or mad about the new list? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:11 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands