CAL MEC Statement
09-06-2013 | 10:43 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 639
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.
That's called fixing the profession.
http://www.sugarlandmagazine.com/art...garland-tx.pdf
Check out the last paragraph, comedy writes itself.
09-07-2013 | 12:40 AM
#22
Don't say Guppy
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
From: Guppy driver
Both MEC's post ISL emails were very disturbing, for different reasons. UAL's MEC sounding like gloating, which is divisive, and unprofessional.
CAL's MEC sounded like a 3 year old that just got his pee pee spanked and wants a do-over. Unprofessional as well.
Sounds like all of us, together, need to vote for completely different leadership.
And move on.
CAL's MEC sounded like a 3 year old that just got his pee pee spanked and wants a do-over. Unprofessional as well.
Sounds like all of us, together, need to vote for completely different leadership.
And move on.
09-07-2013 | 05:41 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
Both MEC's post ISL emails were very disturbing, for different reasons. UAL's MEC sounding like gloating, which is divisive, and unprofessional.
CAL's MEC sounded like a 3 year old that just got his pee pee spanked and wants a do-over. Unprofessional as well.
Sounds like all of us, together, need to vote for completely different leadership.
And move on.
CAL's MEC sounded like a 3 year old that just got his pee pee spanked and wants a do-over. Unprofessional as well.
Sounds like all of us, together, need to vote for completely different leadership.
And move on.
Then I got to the third paragraph.
If you care to post the LUAL version, I'd appreciate it.
09-07-2013 | 05:47 AM
#24
Need More Callouts
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,143
Likes: 0
From: Unbridled Enthusiasm
You currently, and have always used seniority to award JS, not DOH. PLease query your current or ex Jumpseat Committee members. Why do you think your MEC is calling it a "change"?
Another factually incorrect item but I have neither the time nor patience to try and explain this to you again.
09-07-2013 | 05:52 AM
#25
Line Holder
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Both MEC's post ISL emails were very disturbing, for different reasons. UAL's MEC sounding like gloating, which is divisive, and unprofessional.
CAL's MEC sounded like a 3 year old that just got his pee pee spanked and wants a do-over. Unprofessional as well.
Sounds like all of us, together, need to vote for completely different leadership.
And move on.
CAL's MEC sounded like a 3 year old that just got his pee pee spanked and wants a do-over. Unprofessional as well.
Sounds like all of us, together, need to vote for completely different leadership.
And move on.
09-07-2013 | 05:57 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
From: EWR B737FO
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.
09-07-2013 | 06:00 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Both MEC's post ISL emails were very disturbing, for different reasons. UAL's MEC sounding like gloating, which is divisive, and unprofessional.
CAL's MEC sounded like a 3 year old that just got his pee pee spanked and wants a do-over. Unprofessional as well.
Sounds like all of us, together, need to vote for completely different leadership.
And move on.
CAL's MEC sounded like a 3 year old that just got his pee pee spanked and wants a do-over. Unprofessional as well.
Sounds like all of us, together, need to vote for completely different leadership.
And move on.
The integration was fair for both side. No windfall for either. Like the UAL side, the CAL side needs to man-up and move-on. It's done.
Last edited by JohnHale; 09-07-2013 at 06:13 AM.
09-07-2013 | 06:03 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
The UAL MEC had a right to GLOUT. While you were enjoying the fruits of their work, they were doing battle on a daily bases for past 3 years with the CAL MEC and Jeff. The rank and file share in that responsibility for not controlling JP and their MEC and their false expectations. Grouting is not the correct claim but "lack of empathy" for the group that has been working to steal the careers of UAL pilots is.
The integration was fair for both side. No windfall for either. Like the UAL side, the CAL side needs to man-up and move-on. It's done.
The integration was fair for both side. No windfall for either. Like the UAL side, the CAL side needs to man-up and move-on. It's done.
Gloat not glout. They are an embarrassment...at least to me. Seniority for JS.
09-07-2013 | 06:07 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 0
Here's what the UAL Merger Committee put out the day after the list was released:
September 4, 2013
Yesterday, you were sent a copy of the Integrated Seniority List Award. Your Merger Committee has compiled a list of informational bullet points to summarize the decision of the Arbitration Board. This is the end of a multi-year effort to secure a fair and equitable seniority list integration. While we do not expect every pilot be pleased with any arbitrated result, we have followed a mutually agreed upon course to this point and we believe the ISL the arbitrators awarded is sound.
Our team and our counsel note that, on almost every issue, the Arbitration Board relied on our presentation in their decision:
Yesterday, you were sent a copy of the Integrated Seniority List Award. Your Merger Committee has compiled a list of informational bullet points to summarize the decision of the Arbitration Board. This is the end of a multi-year effort to secure a fair and equitable seniority list integration. While we do not expect every pilot be pleased with any arbitrated result, we have followed a mutually agreed upon course to this point and we believe the ISL the arbitrators awarded is sound.
Our team and our counsel note that, on almost every issue, the Arbitration Board relied on our presentation in their decision:
· The UAL-MEC Merger Committee proposed an October 1, 2010 "snapshot" date for the purposes of assessing status and category and measuring longevity. The Arbitration Board based their decision on that date.
· The UAL-MEC Merger Committee proposed incorporating all three factors from Merger Policy. The Arbitration Board emphasized the need to consider all three factors and incorporated all of them.
· The UAL-MEC Merger Committee proposed a Hybrid ISL Model, weighted at 50% status and category and 50% longevity. The Arbitration Board accepted our Hybrid methodology but determined that a weighting of 65% status and category and 35% longevity "blended the two pilot groups most fairly and equitably from the top of the list to the bottom."
· The UAL-MEC Merger Committee’s status and category list grouped aircraft into “Jumbo” (747, 777), “Medium” (767, 757), “Narrow” (A320/319, 737). The Arbitration Board accorded no weight to the negotiated pay bands and adopted these groupings.
· The UAL-MEC Merger Committee urged that only longevity earned while serving in "mainline" operations should be considered. The Arbitration Board agreed and ruled that service for a related regional carrier does not count for longevity purposes.
· The UAL-MEC Merger Committee argued that a substantial number of UAL furloughees should be inserted into the final list with active CAL pilots based on their superior longevity – a key factor in Merger Policy. The Arbitration Board stated that "a proposal that completely ignores sweat equity longevity cannot be a plank in our ISL platform." 718 furloughed UAL pilots were integrated in with active CAL pilots; to date this represents the largest integration of furloughed pilots with active pilots.
· The UAL-MEC Merger Committee's proposal for bidding fences included a 5-year fence on the 747-400 / A350 and restrictions on the 787 by pilot base. The Arbitration Board determined that the 747-400 / A350 would be fenced for the legacy-UAL side while the 787 would be fenced for the legacy-CAL side until the Company takes delivery of its 25th 787, or 5 years, whichever occurs first.
In summary, we believe that the Arbitration Board largely validated the methodologies proposed by the UAL-MEC Merger Committee and has produced a fair and equitable Integrated Seniority List.· The UAL-MEC Merger Committee proposed incorporating all three factors from Merger Policy. The Arbitration Board emphasized the need to consider all three factors and incorporated all of them.
· The UAL-MEC Merger Committee proposed a Hybrid ISL Model, weighted at 50% status and category and 50% longevity. The Arbitration Board accepted our Hybrid methodology but determined that a weighting of 65% status and category and 35% longevity "blended the two pilot groups most fairly and equitably from the top of the list to the bottom."
· The UAL-MEC Merger Committee’s status and category list grouped aircraft into “Jumbo” (747, 777), “Medium” (767, 757), “Narrow” (A320/319, 737). The Arbitration Board accorded no weight to the negotiated pay bands and adopted these groupings.
· The UAL-MEC Merger Committee urged that only longevity earned while serving in "mainline" operations should be considered. The Arbitration Board agreed and ruled that service for a related regional carrier does not count for longevity purposes.
· The UAL-MEC Merger Committee argued that a substantial number of UAL furloughees should be inserted into the final list with active CAL pilots based on their superior longevity – a key factor in Merger Policy. The Arbitration Board stated that "a proposal that completely ignores sweat equity longevity cannot be a plank in our ISL platform." 718 furloughed UAL pilots were integrated in with active CAL pilots; to date this represents the largest integration of furloughed pilots with active pilots.
· The UAL-MEC Merger Committee's proposal for bidding fences included a 5-year fence on the 747-400 / A350 and restrictions on the 787 by pilot base. The Arbitration Board determined that the 747-400 / A350 would be fenced for the legacy-UAL side while the 787 would be fenced for the legacy-CAL side until the Company takes delivery of its 25th 787, or 5 years, whichever occurs first.
09-07-2013 | 06:19 AM
#30
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by UAL Q&A
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.
L-CAL Aircraft EmployeeRes Jumpseat Pass Classifications
FSJ1A L-CAL pilots
SK1A L-UAL pilots
L-UAL Aircraft EmployeeRes Jumpseat Pass Classifications
SJ1U L-UAL pilots
SJ1A L-CAL pilots
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
