![]() |
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.
I called my reps and let them know how much that little policy ticked me off. I don't remember anyone giving ALPA direction to offer up our furloughees to be cast out again (in front of CAL guys). They said that they were trying to get furloughed merged with active and it was something they had to do in order to appease the arbitrators. I don't agree. Even if nobody gets furloughed in the next 5 years, seeing (in writing) that ALPA offered to throw you to the street first is extremely damaging. I would probably be out of ALPA at this point (if I was a UAL furloughee). Once again....keep in mind that the rank and file UAL line pilot did not want to see this. |
Originally Posted by untied
(Post 1477552)
Now THAT is a legitimate gripe!
I called my reps and let them know how much that little policy ticked me off. I don't remember anyone giving ALPA direction to offer up our furloughees to be cast out again (in front of CAL guys). They said that they were trying to get furloughed merged with active and it was something they had to do in order to appease the arbitrators. I don't agree. Even if nobody gets furloughed in the next 5 years, seeing (in writing) that ALPA offered to throw you to the street first is extremely damaging. I would probably be out of ALPA at this point (if I was a UAL furloughee). Once again....keep in mind that the rank and file UAL line pilot did not want to see this. |
Originally Posted by JohnHale
(Post 1477560)
I don't recall reading the highlited part of your post. What's your reference? The furlough protection for CAL added by the arbitrators was not negotiated. The arbitrators felt it necessary to give the CAL types protection for a limited time while the UAL furloughed were moved into their rightful place on the senority list. The UAL Merger Committee did a good job and the abitrators were fair.
This was UAL's idea in order to make putting furloughed with active more appealing. |
For OP, I feel your pain and are in the same shoes. Some things they have control over some they dont. Getting us integrated into the list is a "little help" (moved a 120ish numbers from staple) but benefited the entire UAL side.
The thing you have to remember is we of the 1436 are and have been negotiating pawns for Heppner. We'll see if they will now fix UPA LOA25 (The one that carves out our LUAL pay longevity). Now that damages are known, I will assume the lawsuit will be back if it isn't fixed internally. The ISL is the list and we have to live with it. Keep your head up and remember there is more to life than this job. dog |
Originally Posted by Madmagpilot
(Post 1477584)
... Keep your head up and remember there is more to life than this job.
dog Wise words, Grasshopper! Thanks for giving this idiotic forum perspective. The aura of an airline career is so far removed from what it once was I wonder who cares any more? It's no longer a career. We're simply widgets. Its just a job. FUPM. Show me the money. :D |
Originally Posted by untied
(Post 1477583)
The UAL negotiating committee had this in their proposal to the arbitrators. You can check the transcripts from the hearings.
This was UAL's idea in order to make putting furloughed with active more appealing. |
Originally Posted by JohnHale
(Post 1477604)
I've gone thru the transcripts a couple of time and still don't see a reference to the UAL side trading to get UAL furlough seniority for CAL furlough protection. Would you give me a direct reference to this please.
|
Originally Posted by JohnHale
(Post 1477604)
I've gone thru the transcripts a couple of time and still don't see a reference to the UAL side trading to get UAL furlough seniority for CAL furlough protection. Would you give me a direct reference to this please.
Fences, Furlough out of seniority order, etc. I always thought that was a strange one to throw in there, but I would agree with the earlier poster that said it was something the UAL side felt they needed to do to get the UAL furloughed guys mixed with active employees. And the arbs must have agreed. |
Originally Posted by oldmako
(Post 1477596)
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.48692...5.1&H=90&W=160
Wise words, Grasshopper! Thanks for giving this idiotic forum perspective. The aura of an airline career is so far removed from what it once was I wonder who cares any more? It's no longer a career. We're simply widgets. Its just a job. FUPM. Show me the money. :D |
Originally Posted by untied
(Post 1477583)
The UAL negotiating committee had this in their proposal to the arbitrators. You can check the transcripts from the hearings.
This was UAL's idea in order to make putting furloughed with active more appealing. I think they just looked at the growth and the number of retirements and made a smart decision to give up something that wasn't likely to have any real effect on the UAL pilots. And for those pilots it paid off big time. Also, think of it this way.... If those UAL pilots had been stapled THEY HAVE BEEN FURLOUGHED FIRST ANYWAY. So They didn't give up ANYTHING. They just got integrated fairly. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:06 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands