Don't I know it! Still, good to have some reserve cushion in there.

 

I'm with you.

 

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

 

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'm hoping since you are an '05 hire you have a long, prosperous career with choices afforded to as a result of this merger. No one, I mean no one, I have spoken to at lUAL views benefiting from this merger at lCAL's expense.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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!! Quick advice, treat seniority like scoring your first touchdown, ACT like you've been there before!! Good Luck, J"unior"Sled

 

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:..."