Vacancy Bid
09-27-2013, 09:51 AM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,709
I say let them go to training. That just puts more padding at the bottom for me when I get my bump letter in the near future. I'll just slide in on top them. No problem here.
However, being confused as to what "in training" means is pretty weak no matter how you cut it.
However, being confused as to what "in training" means is pretty weak no matter how you cut it.
09-27-2013, 09:57 AM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Originally Posted by Airhoss
I say let them go to training. That just puts more padding at the bottom for me when I get my bump letter in the near future. I'll just slide in on top them. No problem here.
A pilot that's been through this vacancy/displacement cycle more than once could argue that it's in everybody's interest to have super junior pilots in every fleet/seat to maximize the ability of more senior pilots to bump anywhere.
This whole thing is clearly being fostered by folks who haven't quite yet grasped the methodology contained in the UPA and/or realized the SLI is over. Seniority always wins in the end.
09-27-2013, 09:59 AM
#93
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Originally Posted by Airhoss
I say let them go to training. That just puts more padding at the bottom for me when I get my bump letter in the near future. I'll just slide in on top them. No problem here.
However, being confused as to what "in training" means is pretty weak no matter how you cut it.
However, being confused as to what "in training" means is pretty weak no matter how you cut it.
It's just a character issue.SLed
09-27-2013, 01:30 PM
#94
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 168
Skyflyin'
You point out the Arbs agreed with the United C&R proposal. Do you think the United Merger Committee would propose a C&R that any rational, logical person could use against their best interests?? I just explained to you in my last post that while it isn’t spelled out explicitly, the intent of the SLI A&O is very clear when you read the entire Award. I guess if you can’t see that we’ll never agree. But that’s fine, like you say the Arbitrators will decide.
Furthermore, if you want to scrutinize every word let’s, scrutinize the word “may”.
c. Pilots who, at the time of implementation of an integrated seniority list, are in the process of completing or who have completed qualification training for a new position (e.g., B-777 Captain or A-319 First Officer) may be assigned to the position for which they are being or have been trained, regardless of their relative standing on the Integrated Seniority List.
If there was a S-UA Flight Operations manpower manager at WHQ with a vendetta against S-CAL pilots, he could claim that “may” means it’s left to his discretion whether you complete your training or not. “May” is not “will”. But most rational, logical people realize that’s not the intent of the word “may” here.
Once again, this boils down to the interpretation of “in the process of completing training” The Arbitrators intent is that it doesn’t matter if you had an assigned training date or you didn’t have an assigned training date, either way you are not “in the process of completing training”. If you read the paragraph your sentence above comes from the Arbitrators determination the boundary for cancelling awards is “begun training”. The “many of these individuals had not even been awarded a training date” wording was used by the Arbitrators to highlight the fact to protect any of this group who has not “begun training” is extreme because some of the individuals haven’t even been awarded training awards yet. So the Arbitrators make no distinction between if you have a training award or not, either way you have not “begun training”.
It doesn’t matter what’s in the SFO MOU because the SFO MOU states: In the event the decision and award of the SLI Arbitration Board Is in conflict with this agreement, the decision and award will prevail. So the SLI A&O has priority.
We agree on something. But I think once this becomes public you’ll see Flight Operations and the S-CAL MEC are trying to protect the pilots whose 14-02 Bids were cancelled by granting them displacement rights. They do not have any displacement rights.
Yes we will. But the only two sides that have agreed to anything are the S-CAL MEC and Flight Operation manpower.
From your other post:
I’ve tried to show you that while it doesn’t explain “in the process of training” explicitly, the intent is clear. If the S-CAL MEC wants to build S-CAL pilots expectations by arguing this, I remind you the last time they wanted to dismember every word, squabble every point, and bicker every procedural issue it didn’t work out too well.
From the SFO MOU:
Upon ISL, all awarded, but not advanced (activated) positions for L-CAL and L-UAL pilots will be cancelled and rebid using Vacancy Bids and the UPA integrated seniority list. Any pilot whose award is cancelled under this provision will exercise displacement rights post SLI (a junior pilot matrix in all categories will be established).The following awards will not be cancelled:
1. Any award of a pilot who is in training, or has been scheduled for training via either an L-CAL Training Advancement Bid or an equivalent L-UAL Vacancy Award Training Plan
Again many times it has been pointed covered here the SLI A&O has precedence over the SFO MOU. So the definition here doesn’t apply. A case could even be made that the SFO MOU only applies to the pilots who were awarded Vacancy Bids to SFO, but you’d never agree to that so why bother.
Next month is OK, that’s Tuesday. But I think you’re probably disputing something here your MEC is not. I think your MEC is going after the brass ring and that is Displacement Rights for the Bid 14-02 pilots whose training was cancelled. Because if they are granted this they can just bid right back via the Vacancy Bid into the seats they lost negating the intention of the SLI A&O. The end result of this is they will act as blockers, severely limiting upgrades for a year.
Birddog
Birddog, I don't see anything here that is any different than before. Yes I read the award, and yes they agreed with the United C&R as far as training protections. I have two issues with the arbs decision here regarding being vague.
1. They accepted the UAL training protections, but as you can see the UAL training protections do not define "in the process of training
1. They accepted the UAL training protections, but as you can see the UAL training protections do not define "in the process of training
Furthermore, if you want to scrutinize every word let’s, scrutinize the word “may”.
c. Pilots who, at the time of implementation of an integrated seniority list, are in the process of completing or who have completed qualification training for a new position (e.g., B-777 Captain or A-319 First Officer) may be assigned to the position for which they are being or have been trained, regardless of their relative standing on the Integrated Seniority List.
If there was a S-UA Flight Operations manpower manager at WHQ with a vendetta against S-CAL pilots, he could claim that “may” means it’s left to his discretion whether you complete your training or not. “May” is not “will”. But most rational, logical people realize that’s not the intent of the word “may” here.
2. As the arbs were putting down the CAL MC training protections they are talking about pilots who have been awarded, but not scheduled, for training. Here is their quote below:
"As of the close of these arbitration hearings, many of those individuals had not even been awarded a training date, let alone begun training."
So yes, I understand that they are saying those without training dates should not be protected, but they are vague on those that DO have training dates.
"As of the close of these arbitration hearings, many of those individuals had not even been awarded a training date, let alone begun training."
So yes, I understand that they are saying those without training dates should not be protected, but they are vague on those that DO have training dates.
Lastly, you have the SFO base MOU which states that any award of a pilot who is in training, or who has been scheduled for training via either a L-CAL training advancement award or L-UAL Vacancy award will not have their bid cancelled.
Now, having said that, those on 14-02 or 14-02A that have not been awarded a training award were expecting to have their bids cancelled, so if the CAL MEC is trying to get those guys protected IMO that is a stretch.
We agree on something. But I think once this becomes public you’ll see Flight Operations and the S-CAL MEC are trying to protect the pilots whose 14-02 Bids were cancelled by granting them displacement rights. They do not have any displacement rights.
Again, hopefully the arbs will clear this up in early OCT., but I can't believe they would go against something that the two sides have already agreed to. We will have to wait and see.
From your other post:
Probe, can you not read? Show me where in the arbitration and award or the UAL C&R is shows what “in the process of training” means and I’m good.
I’ve tried to show you that while it doesn’t explain “in the process of training” explicitly, the intent is clear. If the S-CAL MEC wants to build S-CAL pilots expectations by arguing this, I remind you the last time they wanted to dismember every word, squabble every point, and bicker every procedural issue it didn’t work out too well.
Both the CAL C&R’s define it AND the SFO MOU define it in detail.
Upon ISL, all awarded, but not advanced (activated) positions for L-CAL and L-UAL pilots will be cancelled and rebid using Vacancy Bids and the UPA integrated seniority list. Any pilot whose award is cancelled under this provision will exercise displacement rights post SLI (a junior pilot matrix in all categories will be established).The following awards will not be cancelled:
1. Any award of a pilot who is in training, or has been scheduled for training via either an L-CAL Training Advancement Bid or an equivalent L-UAL Vacancy Award Training Plan
Again many times it has been pointed covered here the SLI A&O has precedence over the SFO MOU. So the definition here doesn’t apply. A case could even be made that the SFO MOU only applies to the pilots who were awarded Vacancy Bids to SFO, but you’d never agree to that so why bother.
What is so hard to understand about that? As I said, I’m sure it will be cleared up next month.
Birddog
09-27-2013, 02:39 PM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 178
That was too long birddog, and I'm tired of you guys crapping all over the CAL guys just for having a discussion so I'm not going to respond.
For a lot of the CAL guys the ISL has taken the last 3 or 4 years of advancement away from them and will lead to displacements, more training and pay cuts. I know you guys think that we should never have advanced in the first place, but let me ask you this. If you think we should have shared the advancements over the last 3 years, why do you think it's OK to take ALL the advancements over the last 3 or 4 years yourselves?
You think I'm full of BS I'm sure, so here is a quote from our merger committee so you know I'm not the only one thinking this:
"CAL pilots have returned to their seniority percentage from three years ago and the UAL pilots have gained virtually all of the block hour growth and fleet growth from the merger over the past three years."
Like I said, were not going to convince each other of anything so lets give it a rest.
Cue the "The arbs agreed with us, so we're right, nah nah nee nah nah"
For a lot of the CAL guys the ISL has taken the last 3 or 4 years of advancement away from them and will lead to displacements, more training and pay cuts. I know you guys think that we should never have advanced in the first place, but let me ask you this. If you think we should have shared the advancements over the last 3 years, why do you think it's OK to take ALL the advancements over the last 3 or 4 years yourselves?
You think I'm full of BS I'm sure, so here is a quote from our merger committee so you know I'm not the only one thinking this:
"CAL pilots have returned to their seniority percentage from three years ago and the UAL pilots have gained virtually all of the block hour growth and fleet growth from the merger over the past three years."
Like I said, were not going to convince each other of anything so lets give it a rest.
Cue the "The arbs agreed with us, so we're right, nah nah nee nah nah"
09-27-2013, 02:40 PM
#96
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Cal reserve..the gift that keeps on giving
Posts: 532
[QUOTE=jsled;1491726]"weak" yes. But not surprising. Like you pointed out, these guys couldn't remember when they stated at mainline or flowed back to express. It's just a character issue.
SLed[/
It's just a character issue.SLed[/
Last edited by socalflyboy; 09-27-2013 at 02:42 PM. Reason: Not worth the rebuttal bile
09-28-2013, 08:14 AM
#97
Peace Love Understanding
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
Originally Posted by Skyflyin
That was too long birddog, and I'm tired of you guys crapping all over the CAL guys just for having a discussion so I'm not going to respond.
For a lot of the CAL guys the ISL has taken the last 3 or 4 years of advancement away from them and will lead to displacements, more training and pay cuts. I know you guys think that we should never have advanced in the first place, but let me ask you this. If you think we should have shared the advancements over the last 3 years, why do you think it's OK to take ALL the advancements over the last 3 or 4 years yourselves?
You think I'm full of BS I'm sure, so here is a quote from our merger committee so you know I'm not the only one thinking this:
"CAL pilots have returned to their seniority percentage from three years ago and the UAL pilots have gained virtually all of the block hour growth and fleet growth from the merger over the past three years."
Like I said, were not going to convince each other of anything so lets give it a rest.
Cue the "The arbs agreed with us, so we're right, nah nah nee nah nah"
For a lot of the CAL guys the ISL has taken the last 3 or 4 years of advancement away from them and will lead to displacements, more training and pay cuts. I know you guys think that we should never have advanced in the first place, but let me ask you this. If you think we should have shared the advancements over the last 3 years, why do you think it's OK to take ALL the advancements over the last 3 or 4 years yourselves?
You think I'm full of BS I'm sure, so here is a quote from our merger committee so you know I'm not the only one thinking this:
"CAL pilots have returned to their seniority percentage from three years ago and the UAL pilots have gained virtually all of the block hour growth and fleet growth from the merger over the past three years."
Like I said, were not going to convince each other of anything so lets give it a rest.
Cue the "The arbs agreed with us, so we're right, nah nah nee nah nah"
09-28-2013, 08:18 AM
#98
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
Originally Posted by Skyflyin
That was too long birddog, and I'm tired of you guys crapping all over the CAL guys just for having a discussion so I'm not going to respond.
For a lot of the CAL guys the ISL has taken the last 3 or 4 years of advancement away from them and will lead to displacements, more training and pay cuts. I know you guys think that we should never have advanced in the first place, but let me ask you this. If you think we should have shared the advancements over the last 3 years, why do you think it's OK to take ALL the advancements over the last 3 or 4 years yourselves?
You think I'm full of BS I'm sure, so here is a quote from our merger committee so you know I'm not the only one thinking this:
"CAL pilots have returned to their seniority percentage from three years ago and the UAL pilots have gained virtually all of the block hour growth and fleet growth from the merger over the past three years."
Like I said, were not going to convince each other of anything so lets give it a rest.
Cue the "The arbs agreed with us, so we're right, nah nah nee nah nah"
For a lot of the CAL guys the ISL has taken the last 3 or 4 years of advancement away from them and will lead to displacements, more training and pay cuts. I know you guys think that we should never have advanced in the first place, but let me ask you this. If you think we should have shared the advancements over the last 3 years, why do you think it's OK to take ALL the advancements over the last 3 or 4 years yourselves?
You think I'm full of BS I'm sure, so here is a quote from our merger committee so you know I'm not the only one thinking this:
"CAL pilots have returned to their seniority percentage from three years ago and the UAL pilots have gained virtually all of the block hour growth and fleet growth from the merger over the past three years."
Like I said, were not going to convince each other of anything so lets give it a rest.
Cue the "The arbs agreed with us, so we're right, nah nah nee nah nah"
Tell me - who's in the seats now? How long will it take to bring ISL seniority 'equilibrium' to the entire list?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
