CAL MEC Statement
09-06-2013 | 12:45 PM
#11
Peace Love Understanding
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
From: Airbus
The CAL guppies only have 1 jumpseat. Big issue. What we need is the same deal on the guppies we have on the 757s.
09-06-2013 | 01:33 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
No need to change a policy that's been in place at both airlines for some time. Pilot seniority has worked and worked well for all and leaves no doubt as to who has priority. "Shares" the reservations system stolen from Eastern in the late 70's is likely at fault for not being about to handle "Pilot Seniority" vs DOH. Make the company change the programming to accommodate both "Pilot Senority" and DOH in the system.
This is likely the only time that JP has agreed with me and I'm not proud of it.
09-06-2013 | 01:41 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Sorry about the TRO filing, jumpseat DOH, and fence BS on our side. All are useless Chaff. I would personally like no fences, forget about legacy metal and DOH for the JS. I don't know where this came from.
Actually I might. GK. Did I mention he is a wackjob?
But JP is GK's evil little brother. Even after the ISL, he is divisive. For 75% of both pilot groups, the list works, and we all are a little disappointed.
Put your left foot forward, then the right, repeat as necessary.
Actually I might. GK. Did I mention he is a wackjob?
But JP is GK's evil little brother. Even after the ISL, he is divisive. For 75% of both pilot groups, the list works, and we all are a little disappointed.
Put your left foot forward, then the right, repeat as necessary.
09-06-2013 | 02:18 PM
#14
Banned
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Oh, that's brilliant. Will that work for equipment, seat, maybe even December schedules? So, if I beat everyone to OHare, I can fly jumbo captain to Narita, and be off the last ten days of December? Yea, brilliant idea.
09-06-2013 | 02:33 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,410
Likes: 1
From: Cockpit speaker volume knob set to eleven.
09-06-2013 | 05:50 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Well, that's an interesting perspective. While I'm not arrogant enough to profess whether the list is fair and equitable, what I am surprised about is that a MC could be this clueless about a process so important to his constituents. This scene has played out over and over again. The title of the movie may have changed, but the plot and ending are the same. Freud proposes something he deems reasonable. Katz shoots for the moon.... and adjusts his position based on his clients. (He USED to be Mr DOH. He must have had an epiphany...). Katz always loses and Freunds proposals are adopted with minor modifications. The board does not have the time or inclination to build a list. It's not a negotiation. Pierce thought that there would be a middle ground?? If so, LUAL would have asked for straight DOH to counter the LCAL weird formula. And the list would have ended up close to where it is..... near relative seniority (which is a WIN for the LCAL folks based on longevity issues and number of widebodys)
How can I, one of the dumbest pilots at the airline, do a simple search of arbitration awards from these two lawyers and see this so plainly, and a MC can miss it so wildly?!!
Sorry LCAL pilots. He failed you in my opinion. That being said, I don't think it would have mattered much. The award would be darned close to what it is regardless of what the two sides put forward.
I'm disappointed in my MEC's challenge of the 787 fence and the Jumpseat issue. Especially since the fences were their idea in the first place!! Hopefully both of those will be denied because we already agreed to the process, and loathe those type of challenges after previously agreeing to a process. That's something management would do
How can I, one of the dumbest pilots at the airline, do a simple search of arbitration awards from these two lawyers and see this so plainly, and a MC can miss it so wildly?!!
Sorry LCAL pilots. He failed you in my opinion. That being said, I don't think it would have mattered much. The award would be darned close to what it is regardless of what the two sides put forward.
I'm disappointed in my MEC's challenge of the 787 fence and the Jumpseat issue. Especially since the fences were their idea in the first place!! Hopefully both of those will be denied because we already agreed to the process, and loathe those type of challenges after previously agreeing to a process. That's something management would do
The thing I agree with you most is we both can find things that we DISAGREE that our MC proposed, and I will let them know in private out of respect. However, in the end we all agreed to a process and your last statement hit it on the head!! It's a character issue to honor that process, and I can tell you have character!!
09-06-2013 | 06:52 PM
#18
Widebody
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
From: 777 CAP
Rumor: Is the United MEC about to throw pilot seniority system out window for jumpseats?
Facts: The short answer is no. This issue is racing through the ranks for many reasons not worth mentioning because they are a distraction. We presently have no definitive resolution on this issue between the CAL and the UAL MECs. What we have is a different perspective on how this issue is handled, based on the respective worlds we lived in pre-merger.
sCAL has used their seniority list for years for a variety of reasons, which could include multiple lists already mixing up hire dates from past mergers.
sUAL has grown used to seeing our Pilot Date of Hire on the Jumpseat ticket stock for a number of reasons.
This item came up to the MEC because the company asked us how we were going to handle the Jumpseat so they could program the system. The good news is they asked before implementing anything. But the question highlighted that we have a possible conflict on how we perceive this issue. It was not an agenda item nor was there any motions made on the topic but was brought up as a matter for future consideration. It was agreed among the UAL MEC that this is an issue that should be dealt with after a joint MEC is in place so that there would be discussion, debate, and consensual resolution from all stakeholders.
As such, the UAL MEC has indicated to the company to keep the status quo until a resolution was found. Whatever the process was for pilots before the ISL will remain the process until the new MEC comes to a resolution. Jumpseat priority should remain just as it was before the ISL award, with a different boarding priority for each other’s metal.
Do not allow this to become a conflict between the pilot groups. We have lived with this policy for the last 3 years and waiting another couple months to come to a unified position is warranted. This also give us time to vet this out properly, not jump to conclusions, or make decisions on semantics. We understand that once the MEC is in a room and discusses the issues and hears each other’s perspective and views, we will come to the correct decision for all pilots.
Facts: The short answer is no. This issue is racing through the ranks for many reasons not worth mentioning because they are a distraction. We presently have no definitive resolution on this issue between the CAL and the UAL MECs. What we have is a different perspective on how this issue is handled, based on the respective worlds we lived in pre-merger.
sCAL has used their seniority list for years for a variety of reasons, which could include multiple lists already mixing up hire dates from past mergers.
sUAL has grown used to seeing our Pilot Date of Hire on the Jumpseat ticket stock for a number of reasons.
This item came up to the MEC because the company asked us how we were going to handle the Jumpseat so they could program the system. The good news is they asked before implementing anything. But the question highlighted that we have a possible conflict on how we perceive this issue. It was not an agenda item nor was there any motions made on the topic but was brought up as a matter for future consideration. It was agreed among the UAL MEC that this is an issue that should be dealt with after a joint MEC is in place so that there would be discussion, debate, and consensual resolution from all stakeholders.
As such, the UAL MEC has indicated to the company to keep the status quo until a resolution was found. Whatever the process was for pilots before the ISL will remain the process until the new MEC comes to a resolution. Jumpseat priority should remain just as it was before the ISL award, with a different boarding priority for each other’s metal.
Do not allow this to become a conflict between the pilot groups. We have lived with this policy for the last 3 years and waiting another couple months to come to a unified position is warranted. This also give us time to vet this out properly, not jump to conclusions, or make decisions on semantics. We understand that once the MEC is in a room and discusses the issues and hears each other’s perspective and views, we will come to the correct decision for all pilots.
09-06-2013 | 09:45 PM
#19
Peace Love Understanding
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
From: Airbus
So the question remains....just because we bought CAL doesn't mean we have to use their jumpseat methodology. We've ALWAYS used DOH at United.
Now we have to use Pilot Seniority List so that the CAL guys can feel better about the SLI?
Now we have to use Pilot Seniority List so that the CAL guys can feel better about the SLI?
09-06-2013 | 10:28 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
I'm sure JPs ripping the arbitrators "writing skills and contradictory award" will bode real well for CAL pilots on future SLI dispute resolutions with these arbitrators. Instead of pandering to CAL pilots to sooth his personal approval insecurities he should have kept his focus on the pilots he reps and not ticking off the arbitrators with potential unfinished details. JV move.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
