Originally Posted by aileronjam (Post 1477346)

Placing ANY UAL furloughed pilot behind a CAL furloughed pilot (based on the 2010 snapshot) is asinine.... then again, based on ALPA history... the guys on the bottom of the list don't really matter.

Originally Posted by Ottolillienthal (Post 1477337)

Well, for allot of folks CAL was their first choice airline. I only applied at one airline when I thought the time was right and for me it was CAL. I was treated and greeted very graciously on their jump seats and for that I was grateful. I thought the vision and energy of Gordon Bethune was contagious and it was allot of fun to be a part of a turn around. Allot of folks saw that UAL and CAL both had their share of scabs and that was sort of a "neutral offset." UAL was pushing hard for minority/females and so if you didn't fit that demographic you knew you should look elsewhere.

CAL was also attractive in the sense that if you looked at the ages (seniority age visualizer) you could predict that with modest growth one might be a Captain in 2 to 2.5 years. CAL had a unique age demographic with allot of senior bubba's and CAL was looking to backfill with youth. That was a combination of post Vietnam era hires and the older scabs that age 60 was mandating.

Meanwhile UAL had already hired a whole bunch of younger pilots in the mid 90's, so most folks thought a quicker upgrade would come at CAL. That has mostly been true to form, as most of the Captains at CAL lack grey hair or still have most of it left. Naturally, both airlines suffered the same setbacks post 9-11, albeit UAL suffered the most, and both pilot groups suffered the same setbacks in terms of upward mobility due to age 65.

I still think CAL was the better choice. Had friends hired at UAL around the same time and they didn't like it. It was fun, no HR boogie man in every room, good crews, Gordon had some hot girl friends, and we got for the most part prompt upgrades due to mandatory retirements.

Originally Posted by untied (Post 1477373)

I looked at CAL in 1995. I considered it a lateral move from being a Brasilia Captain.:eek:

Seriously...the pay was terrible, most of the Captains were Scabs (where at UAL they were a small minority), the training department was run by Scabs, the work rules were the worst in the industry, the domiciles were horrible, etc.

All my buds who ended up there wanted to be somewhere else first. To say that you saw CAL as the best choice is really...well...interesting.

It turned out well for you, but it was basically dumb luck rather than expert planning and insight.

UAL looked great (2.5 year upgrades, huge pension, industry leading work rules, great domiciles, new hires flying the 747, etc.). It ended up tanking pretty hard and disappointing us all.

It is what it is....I'm fine with moving on.

Originally Posted by Ottolillienthal (Post 1477337)

Well, for allot of folks CAL was their first choice airline. I only applied at one airline when I thought the time was right and for me it was CAL. I was treated and greeted very graciously on their jump seats and for that I was grateful. I thought the vision and energy of Gordon Bethune was contagious and it was allot of fun to be a part of a turn around. Allot of folks saw that UAL and CAL both had their share of scabs and that was sort of a "neutral offset." UAL was pushing hard for minority/females and so if you didn't fit that demographic you knew you should look elsewhere.

CAL was also attractive in the sense that if you looked at the ages (seniority age visualizer) you could predict that with modest growth one might be a Captain in 2 to 2.5 years. CAL had a unique age demographic with allot of senior bubba's and CAL was looking to backfill with youth. That was a combination of post Vietnam era hires and the older scabs that age 60 was mandating.

Meanwhile UAL had already hired a whole bunch of younger pilots in the mid 90's, so most folks thought a quicker upgrade would come at CAL. That has mostly been true to form, as most of the Captains at CAL lack grey hair or still have most of it left. Naturally, both airlines suffered the same setbacks post 9-11, albeit UAL suffered the most, and both pilot groups suffered the same setbacks in terms of upward mobility due to age 65.

I still think CAL was the better choice. Had friends hired at UAL around the same time and they didn't like it. It was fun, no HR boogie man in every room, good crews, Gordon had some hot girl friends, and we got for the most part prompt upgrades due to mandatory retirements.

Originally Posted by missintheline (Post 1477282)

The Lost Boys of 2000-2001. The ones you neglected to remember when you smashed together these lists and stapled us behind the class of 2008.

Originally Posted by SOTeric (Post 1477428)

Wow....Gordo had hot girlfriends. Gee, sign me up.

When I was hired at UA, CO was a last resort.

Originally Posted by lolwut (Post 1477435)

Yet again, this phrase comes true.

"The greater the risk, the greater the possible reward."

Originally Posted by Coto Pilot (Post 1477465)

If someone is asking how furloughed United pilots got screwed, consider that our merger committee offered us up to be furloughed again ahead of CAL pilots that had weeks on the property even though many of were in seat for 6-7 years. They won't furlough unless it will be for a few years, so another one will cost each of us a half million dollars.