CAL MEC Statement
09-07-2013, 05:47 AM
#21
Need More Callouts
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Unbridled Enthusiasm
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by LAX Pilot
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?
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"?
Originally Posted by LAX Pilot
So the question remains....just because we bought CAL doesn't mean we have to use their jumpseat methodology.
09-07-2013, 05:52 AM
#22
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 32
Originally Posted by Probe
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
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: EWR B737FO
Posts: 225
Originally Posted by Monkeyfly
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, 06:03 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Posts: 222
Originally Posted by JohnHale
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
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Originally Posted by Sink r8
If you care to post the LUAL version, I'd appreciate it.
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
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
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
09-07-2013, 09:07 AM
#27
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by Really
Very good post!! I really like reading your posts since I like to hear what the other sides (and I'm glad we're same side now!!) prospective is! I find myself agreeing with almost all of what you say, with some obvious differences!
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!!
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!!
09-07-2013, 11:45 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,923
I'll tell you why the Delta system is better. The jumpseat window opens at noon 6 days prior for guys going to work (book Monday at noon for following Sunday jumpeat), 4 days going from, and 2 days for personal use. It is first come, first serve. Once you have your jumpseat booked, you know you are getting on that flight. No more checking loads, watching for a senior pilot, etc. You are getting to work. If someone beats you to booking the jumpseat (sometimes by a second), you book another one. Your seniority system is idiotic. There is always someone more senior that can show up last minute and bump you. Why do you guys put yourself through that much stress. US Airways has a similar system to Delta. American has a similar system to CAL. I am curious to see if they have this same fight.
Keep fighting to preserve your precious seniority on the jumpseat. How are you guys going to handle non-revving since other employee groups are involved?
Keep fighting to preserve your precious seniority on the jumpseat. How are you guys going to handle non-revving since other employee groups are involved?
09-07-2013, 11:58 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
How are you guys going to handle non-revving since other employee groups are involved?
09-07-2013, 12:04 PM
#30
Peace Love Understanding
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
I'll tell you why the Delta system is better. The jumpseat window opens at noon 6 days prior for guys going to work (book Monday at noon for following Sunday jumpeat), 4 days going from, and 2 days for personal use. It is first come, first serve. Once you have your jumpseat booked, you know you are getting on that flight. No more checking loads, watching for a senior pilot, etc. You are getting to work. If someone beats you to booking the jumpseat (sometimes by a second), you book another one. Your seniority system is idiotic. There is always someone more senior that can show up last minute and bump you. Why do you guys put yourself through that much stress.?
Great system. NOT.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
