What am I missing, the list seems fair...
 

I am a 2005 CAL guy and I don't see a problem with the list. I am merged in with 1998 UAL pilots.

I was born in 1976, all of the UAL pilots near me in seniority were born in the early 1960s. Seems to me that they will be long gone for my last 10-15 years at the company.

Why are CAL folks complaining? I am very happy with this list. In 1998 I was a junior in college.

One of my flight instructors in college was hired at UAL in 2000. I am now 2,000 numbers ahead of him on the new list. Is that fair? Not really, considering that he had just graduated when I was a freshmen, but that is how this biz works out.

I am just not understanding why CAL folks are mad?



Also, how can I find out what the exact DOH is for the people I am merged in with?

It is under the heading DOH on the list. For L-UAL it is straight forward. For the L-CAL no one knows for sure if the DOH is accurate.

I don't have a DOH heading on my list. Just DOB.

Bravo, that is the way I see it unless I am reading something wrong. The post 9/11 Cal pilots have had a windfall.

TEN

The last 10-15 years of your career are meaningless until you are in the last 10-15 years of your career

@DMC12,

You truly epitomize "All About Me".

You are my hero,

Birddog

All About Me

I think folks are mad because those that never got furloughed at all just got screwed. Also, the arbitrator is wrong. There was indeed a union on property during the flow-through agreement periods whereby COEX pilots were hired at mainline CAL. To state that there was no agreement in place, nor union in place is incorrect. I guess I paid union dues to something called IACP for nothing.

UAL downsized their airline and eliminated over 1400 positions. Those jobs went away along with the airplanes and those positions were subsequently absorbed by feeder/regional carriers flying RJ's. If you lost positions to a ghost pilot who was furloughed and who had absolutely no job to come back to then you probably are a bit miffed.

Absolutely correct!

I haven't read the ruling. However, in my case your above statement is incorrect. There was a flow through agreement that I was part of but the IACP came on property 5 yrs later. There were many different agreements, thats the problem! The ISL puts it all to bed thankfully!!

Spot on Birdman!!!!