|
Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
(Post 1491170)
The Sled won't be enjoying those same Capt % after the fourth or fifth vacancy bid. Enjoy them while they last.:D
|
Originally Posted by jsled
(Post 1491171)
Don't I know it! Still, good to have some reserve cushion in there.
|
Originally Posted by APC225
(Post 1491166)
CAL brought the hours. They had to go somewhere. UAL real estate seemed the logical place. Now sUAL pilots can take advantage of the extra hours in those bases. Your complaint is?
Sled |
It is nice to see some happy s-UA pilots for a change. Even if it is at my expense (05 737 CA). I'm serious
|
Originally Posted by IAHB756
(Post 1491191)
It is nice to see some happy s-UA pilots for a change. Even if it is at my expense (05 737 CA). I'm serious
|
I understand and count my blessings each day that I didn't stay at AirTran back in 2005 when offered the job at CAL. Some that did are seen in the United line at job fairs these days.
|
Originally Posted by Skyflyin
(Post 1489771)
You may like to repeat that ST, but what the CAL MC proposed was exactly what was awarded in the Delta/NWA merger and not very far from the UAL proposal (below).
The UAL Committee’s pilots in training proposed C&R (Number 1.3) is as follows: 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. I was surprised that the arbs did not define what "in the process of training" meant, just for the reason that the two sides seem to be arguing now. Besides, I wasn't talking about the 14-02 guys, but the guys that would be bumped that are already in the position. I thought I'd run this by you and let you punch holes in it. Just curious about your opinion and how you would continue to justify that "in the process of training" is vague. Thanks, Birddog, I've pasted the C&R Qualification Training C&R discussion below because the Arbitrators words explain it best: F. CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS Our review of many prior ISL arbitration decisions teaches that elaborate conditions and restrictions unduly complicate implementation of an Integrated Seniority List. The interminable disputes they generate tend to breed animosity that corrodes flight crew relations. Our Award seeks to achieve its goals of fairness and equity primarily through the construction and creation of the ISL itself, while awarding only standard and necessary conditions and restrictions of limited reach and duration. In most respects, the competing Conditions and Restrictions proposed by the respective Committees covered traditional common ground and mutually satisfied the fair and equitable standards of Merger Policy. In constructing our conditions and restrictions, we selected what we deemed to be the best of each and made minimal adjustments. But it is necessary that we address and resolve three points of controversy in those common subject matter proposals. 1. “Qualification Training” The UAL Committee’s pilots in training proposed C&R (Number 1.3) is as follows: 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. Two of the CAL Committee's proposed C&Rs address pilots in training: Neither the implementation of the ISL nor the Implementation or expiration of a condition or restriction herein, in and of itself, shall cause the displacement of any pilot from his or her then-current position (including a pilot who has been awarded a position but has not commenced or completed training). Pilots who, at the time of implementation of the ISL, are in the process of completing or who have completed qualification training for a new position (e.g., B-777 Captain or A41 320 First Officer) may be assigned to the position for which they are being or have been trained, regardless of their relative standing on the ISL. Pilots awarded new positions shall be considered as “in the process of completing . . . qualification training for a new position”, within the meaning of this provision, unless and until they have cancelled their bids for the new positions, withdrawn from training, failed the training without further recourse to further training, or successfully completed the training. The CAL Committee’s training protection proposals include “a pilot who has been awarded a position but has not commenced or completed training.” (Emphasis added). That expanded definition would have the Board sweep into protective coverage some 400 CAL pilots awarded tentative February 2014 positions in the January 2013 CAL Bid 14-02. As of the close of these arbitration hearings, many of those individuals had not even been awarded a training date, let alone begun training. Moreover, treating them as “currently in” those positions or “in the process of completing training” would unilaterally rewrite language mutually agreed to by the CAL pilots, the UAL pilots and the Company (See TPA Section 5-B. Acceptance of the Integrated Seniority List, in Appendix 1). There simply is no fair and equitable basis for this Board to award what the CAL Committee proposes. Under the guise of protecting pilots from displacement from “then-current positions”, it would extend such protection to pilots who don’t actually have such positions at all. In short, if granted, it would interfere with the fair operation of the ISL forever by placing CAL pilots immovably in positions that their ISL seniority would not entitle them to hold. For all of those reasons, this Board did not adopt the CAL Committees' proposed C&R Numbers 1(b) and 1(c). Look at the sentence in S-CAL’s second C&R proposal from above--- Pilots awarded new positions shall be considered as “in the process of completing . . . qualification training for a new position”, within the meaning of this provision. This was the S-CAL Merger Committee’s(MC) attempt to have the SLI arbitration panel protect the Bid 14-02 pilots allowing them to keep their awards and not cancel the awards once the SLI A&O was delivered. But this attempt also establishes another point. Clearly the S-CAL MC understands that pilots “awarded” new positions are not “in the process of completing…Qualification Training for a new position”. Why else would they attempt to alter the language of the C&R? This solidifies the fact if a pilot only been awarded a position, the pilot is not in the process of completing Qualification Training and their training must be cancelled unless the cancellation bears undue cost upon the company. The Arbiters even state above to treat these pilots as ““in the process of completing training” would unilaterally rewrite language mutually agreed to by the CAL pilots, the UAL pilots AND the company”. The Arbiters also say that to protect these pilots would “interfere with the fair operation of the ISL forever by placing CAL pilots immovably in positions that their ISL seniority would not entitle them to hold”. While these pilots “are displaced”, the Arbiters granted them “no displacement rights”. And as we saw above the ISL prevails over the SFO MOU and the UPA Chapter 8 is not in effect yet. There are NO displacement rights for the Bid 14-02 pilots whose training is cancelled. |
Originally Posted by Birddog
(Post 1491357)
Skyflyin,
I thought I'd run this by you and let you punch holes in it. Just curious about your opinion and how you would continue to justify that "in the process of training" is 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" 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. 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. 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. |
Originally Posted by jsled
(Post 1491183)
We should have been splitting the new vacancies just like we did with SFO. But instead they got stacked with junior CAL guys. Oh well, it will save me the headache of reserve. Bring on the bids! Seniority is forever.
Sled |
Originally Posted by Skyflyin
(Post 1491410)
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" 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. 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. 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. The SFO 737 MOU also says: "In the event the decision and award of the SLI Arbitration Board is in conflict with this agreement, the decision and award will prevail:..." |
Originally Posted by DaMnad
(Post 1491451)
The SFO 737 MOU also says:
"In the event the decision and award of the SLI Arbitration Board is in conflict with this agreement, the decision and award will prevail:..." That is the problem. |
What words don't you understand?
|
Originally Posted by Probe
(Post 1491489)
What words don't you understand?
What is so hard to understand about that? As I said, I'm sure it will be cleared up next month. |
Originally Posted by Really
(Post 1491423)
So is KARMA!! You sound like a ..., well never mind!! Make sure you identify yourself when getting on a flt. if we ever fly together on the 73!! I want to know what type person I'm flying with. However, doesn't sound like it will be hard to tell with you!!:rolleyes: Quick advice, treat seniority like scoring your first touchdown, ACT like you've been there before!! Good Luck, J"unior"Sled;)
Good Day, Longevity Sled |
Originally Posted by Skyflyin
(Post 1491504)
Show me where in the arbitration and award or the UAL C&Rs it shows what "in the process of training" means and I'm good.
Just because it doesn't say what you want it say doesn't mean it's vague. ;) |
Originally Posted by Skyflyin
(Post 1491484)
Yes, I understand that, but both the "decision and award" and the UAL C&Rs do not define "in the process of training".
That is the problem. VERY confusing. Kind of like date of hire was also very confusing for some folks at CAL. The Arbs didn't have much trouble figuring it out for you though. So I wouldn't worry this too has a simple definition. TIME to QUIT playing these games folks!! |
Originally Posted by Skyflyin
(Post 1491504)
Probe, can you not read??? Show me where in the arbitration and award or the UAL C&Rs it shows what "in the process of training" means and I'm good. Both the CAL C&Rs define it AND the SFO MOU define it in detail.
What is so hard to understand about that? As I said, I'm sure it will be cleared up next month. Guys. Don't worry about this little rif. Which is worse? Let them go to training or give them displacement rights? Hopefully we can just move on. There will be plenty of vacancies in the future. JMHO. Sled |
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. |
Originally Posted by Airhoss
(Post 1491717)
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. |
Originally Posted by Airhoss
(Post 1491717)
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. SLed |
Skyflyin'
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 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. 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 |
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" |
[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. :rolleyes: It's just a character issue.
SLed[/ |
Originally Posted by Skyflyin
(Post 1491967)
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" |
Originally Posted by Skyflyin
(Post 1491967)
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" Tell me - who's in the seats now? How long will it take to bring ISL seniority 'equilibrium' to the entire list? |
The three stooges right on cue. Well done. :)
|
Originally Posted by skyflyin
(Post 1492501)
the three stooges right on cue. Well done. :)
|
Originally Posted by Skyflyin
(Post 1492501)
The three stooges right on cue. Well done. :)
We all know who the stooges are. Thank God most of them were placed junior to me in the SLI. |
Originally Posted by LAX Pilot
(Post 1492564)
You know what's funny? That we called SLI almost to the seniority number and none of the stupid LCAL arguments were given any weight. Like the "considered" means they can give it zero weight, etc.
We all know who the stooges are. Thank God most of them were placed junior to me in the SLI. |
Originally Posted by LAX Pilot
(Post 1492564)
You know what's funny? That we called SLI almost to the seniority number and none of the stupid LCAL arguments were given any weight. Like the "considered" means they can give it zero weight, etc.
We all know who the stooges are. Thank God most of them were placed junior to me in the SLI. |
Originally Posted by El Gwopo
(Post 1492748)
Just flew with one of those "stooges" today. 2005 hire...37 years old...left seat. He's not complaining. In fact, I've flown with a lot of them. :D
|
Originally Posted by El Gwopo
(Post 1492748)
Just flew with one of those "stooges" today. 2005 hire...37 years old...left seat. He's not complaining. In fact, I've flown with a lot of them. :D
Kills me when I see them strutting around... I was a 28 year old 747 f/O then a 31 year old 727 Captain. So, who cares? |
Originally Posted by Skyflyin
(Post 1491967)
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" I don't want to take ALL the advancements for the last 3 years. I want the TPA, UPA, SFO MOU, and SLI A&O followed as they were written and intended. Remember, the SLI is from a October 2010 outlook. The 14-02 & 14-02A Bids wouldn't have existed then, the 14-02D bids shouldn't be created now. What the S-CAL Merger Committee is describing above is a Relative Seniority ISL award using an October 2010 snapshot. I'm not going to argue that's it's fair, but it is reasonable. It's also what every S-CAL 737 FO was preaching to me when I was jumpseating to work back in 2010 and 2011. Yes, we can rest because per the agreements the EKN panel still has jurisdiction over the issue of granting displacements. Dogg |
When I say "lateral" above, the Bid this pilot possessed on Bid 14-02A was 767 CAP IAH. They never received a TAB. Now they are showing 767 CAP EWR. I assume the new 767 CAP bid to EWR is an award from Bid 14-02D. You have to sift the combined domicile rosters on CCS to find these awards since they aren't published in one spot. Like the former S-CAL pilots now sporting 76T bids.
Dogg |
Originally Posted by Birddog
(Post 1493585)
Sorry for the lengthy reply. Just trying to cover every base. Also, sorry if you felt like I was "crapping" on you. I don't look at this as a CAL vs UAL issue. Granting these displacement rights affects ALL pilots. It appears a pilot in the high 7000's in seniority numbers received a 767 Captain award on the 14-02D bid, a lateral. That position is now unavailable to ALL pilots for some time who want adjust to a post-ISL landscape with a Vacancy bid.
I don't want to take ALL the advancements for the last 3 years. I want the TPA, UPA, SFO MOU, and SLI A&O followed as they were written and intended. Remember, the SLI is from a October 2010 outlook. The 14-02 & 14-02A Bids wouldn't have existed then, the 14-02D bids shouldn't be created now. What the S-CAL Merger Committee is describing above is a Relative Seniority ISL award using an October 2010 snapshot. I'm not going to argue that's it's fair, but it is reasonable. It's also what every S-CAL 737 FO was preaching to me when I was jumpseating to work back in 2010 and 2011. Yes, we can rest because per the agreements the EKN panel still has jurisdiction over the issue of granting displacements. Dogg I also don't think you were one of the ones "crapping" on me. We were having a reasonable discussion when others have to make it a us vs. them slugfest. That's the nature of the anonymous forum though and it goes with the territory. I can take it, but I will dish it out as well. Anyway, thanks for the reasonable replies. See you on the line. |
So where do you find the 14-02D awards? I'm not one of them, but I'd just like to see where people went.
|
Thanks Skyflyin, After reading that post a couple of my friends called me "long/winded" too:-)
Free Flyer, It's not worth the effort to find where the 14-02D awardees went. You find them on the domicile rosters under Future. Then you have see if their bid was on 14-02 or 14-02A. Then you have to cross reference all the TAB's from April forward to see if they were awarded a training date. If they have an award on the roster and didn't have a TAB, they're 14-02D. Too much work. I just did it to find if one person was awarded anything. They were so 14-02D bids have bid awarded to some. No idea how many. Dogg |
Thanks for saving me the hassle of looking
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:40 PM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands