Why is this industry norm? Hats off to those who can blithely say, "Oh well" and get over it. On the other hand, if someone's position didn't change much and he/she tells others who suffered a large setback to "get over it", then that rings a little hollow.

I still feel the fact that United had been stagnant for the last decade, and appeared that it would continue to be stagnant for the foreseeable future, should have been more of a factor in the integration process. I was at an airline with movement. United wasn't moving. I go from being around 55th percentile last month at Continental to the 69th percentile on the ISL this month. (Pardon me if I'm mistaken, I'm assuming the ISL as published is current and has deleted names of people that have retired, and that therefore, it is reasonable to compare where I was percentage wise last month with where this list puts me today). It will take me almost 6 1/2 years, until January 2020 (based on retirements) to reach the 50th percentile on the combined list.

Feels like quite a step backwards. Perhaps I don't have the big picture. I felt like we brought a growing airline to the table and pushing my potential for a left seat job back 6 years seems like a large concession. Certainly not the "1 or 2 percentage points" mantra I was hearing on these boards.

I have to go hug my blankie now.

Remember that you merged with an airline that overall had a better status and category because of more jumbo airplanes, and pilots with much more longevity.

The "growing airline" you brought to the table had pilots on furlough on the MAD, which was October 2010. The arbitrators agreed with this. If you read the award the "new airplanes" were a decision to make CAL more lucrative to a larger more financially stable merger partner, and not because CAL was "growing". These were replacement aircraft. Not new growth aircraft.

Read the award. It has very detailed reasons why the neutral unbiased arbitrators decided what they did.

Also ask your MC why they took an extreme proposal and how they think that influenced the process in your favor, if at all.

A few of us have been on here trying to explain this for months, and we keep getting the same talking points being spewed back, which in the end, under the light of close and open scrutiny, didn't hold any water.

Really? United has been recalling furloughed pilots and hiring off the street for over 2 years now.

Your unreasonable belief that CAL somehow was an "airline under the UCH umbrella operating separately under its own organic self without any impetus or influence from an other airline" was just proved to be false.

The way it looks from here is that one side got to derive 100% of the benefit of the merger for the first 3 years, and now they are crying like children that its finally been fixed!

The CAL pilot in the new list at exactly 69% is an April 2001 hire (with a CALEX hire date showing 1996). That pilot had a 2010 number of 3206. He therefore had a snapshot relative seniority of 3206/4589=69% and today that pilot has a relative seniority of 8386/12155=69%.


Me thinks thou dost protest too much.


Your movement since 2010 from 69% to 55% came while working for one company called United Airlines and it came on the backs of the "other" group that had backwards movement.

You forgot to mention that it was "skewed" because he decided to count pilots who were integrated below him in his pre-merger list without question, but once the pilots got integrated who would be senior to him, he decided he no likey that so much.

And you are right. This list is a 2010 list, and comparing the September 2013 LCAL list (which stopped being relevant in Oct 2010) to the Arbitrated October 2010 list, is not a fair comparison.

Ah but it gives them something to whine about.

CAL 2005 hire here. Agree with LAX and Sunvox on these points. Nobody made out like bandits.

Your post illustrates what I consider to be the BIGGEST failure of Katz. I won't say "mistake" because he knew what he was doing. So I consider it an intentional failure. I said this a few months ago and it still holds true. When Katz asked for the April 2013 snapshot, he did us ALL a terrible disservice. The snapshot date was never going to be in 2013. It was always going to be 2010 if you have done ANY research on airline mergers. Katz knew it. And frankly, you didn't WANT it to be 2013, because that just encourages one side to delay delay and delay the JCBA and SLI to take advantage of management whipsawing one group agains the other. Unfortunately this seemed to be LCAL's tactic. Trouble is, some on the LCAL side bought into Katz's position and think that a 2013 snapshot is "fair", hence they got screwed by 15-20%. If you thought this, you really should have spent more time studying how these awards go and steeled yourself that 2013 was NEVER a realistic positibility. By selling that date to you, Katz has bred a huge amount of angst and discontent which serves none of us.

Perhaps you might try to alter your perspective a bit and see if it helps you accept the award a little more easily. As 2010 was ALWAYS going to be the snapshot date, you've had a nice 3 year windfall of better bids, vacation, time off, and schedules than you would have if the list went like DAL's and was settled in 2010. This is something the LUAL pilots did not get to enjoy. We are now back to the neutrals decision for what was fair and equitable in 2010 and we move forward from here without being able to recoup anything from that 3 year period. It is simply a leveling of the playing field, with no restitution for 3 years lost time. And I'm fine with that. But methinks you might be protesting too much. Kudos to the LCAL pilots who didn't buy off on Katz's pipe dream and thus see the more realistic picture

May 06 hire:

LCAL 2010 snapshot 82%
ISL: 80%
Sep 3 2013: 72%

It is all in how you view the stats, as many have said before. On one hand, I have no one younger on LUAL above me, which will be nice in 20 years. On the other hand, I just dropped 8% in one day. Let's get over it and move on.

Great post. Every CAL pilot I encounter talks about their percentage on Monday compared to today vs their percentage in 2010 vs today. I would guess that most are within a couple of percent.

No you really didn't. You borrowed 10% for 3 years with no interest. Those are really good loan terms