I think you mean "longevity".

On the UAL side, everyone seemed to get at least their longevity until somewhere in 1996-97. Then it went heavily to the CAL side.

Once again, UAL ALPA sold out the bottom of the list…

CAL made such ridiculous arguments that the arbitrators disregarded their opinions altogether….so at least we had THAT!

 

Agree! They should have been placed in ratio starting with the first active UAL pilot, had the arbitration looked anything like the past precedents and awards of the last 30 years, prior to the merger policy change ... what was so terribly "just wrong" was ALPA changing the merger policy so as to hugely advantaged one group over another in reference to past integrations ... it let the arbs rape the CAL side to appease the UAL side (again, the reference being all integrations of the past 30 years pre-merger policy change) ... so as to avoid another "US Airways" defection ... disgusting, as is those who hide behind the policy change claiming "fairness".

 

Are you sure your man Brucia is a L-cal pilot? I gather we can place you in the slick tie column.

 

Slick tie??? Yes & No ... my ALPA pin is on my jacket lapel ... I wear an association pin in affirmation of such to my employer and the traveling public, not to my fellow association members ... I minimally support our current "union" and it's apparent and demonstrated version of "unity" ... I would fully support a decert of ALPA, and the certification of a new union not associated with ALPA and the current UAL ALPA "machine" ... if we really want unity, we need to start completely from a clean slate and build a true union ... as for Brucia, I take it you are comfortable hiding behind the merger policy "fairness" sham?

 

Fairness sham? I would say that "most" of us from a 2010 standpoint didn't win or lose anything. We simply dodged the CAL merger bullet. For that reason i'm quite pleased with our merger committee and how they conducted themselves.

So you don't support your fellow association members? Remember that when you are flying the line. If you are ever in need of support, I think you'll find all you need in the flight office.

You guys remind me of an old Braniff pilot who scabbed at United. He said he couldn't wait to scab an ALPA carrier to exact revenge on the perceived injustices carried out against him at Braniff by ALPA. In end, who do you think he really posed the most danger to , ALPA or the pilots of United?

 

Your standpoint "perception" starts with a list "percentage" that includes 1437 pilots without a job, and assumes that any growth post Dec 2010 should have been distributed as if there was a JCBA AND A ISL. The plain fact is that prior to the merger policy change, everyone of the 1437 positions most likely would have gone after all active CAL pilots, and very likely behind every CAL pilot (based on past precedents), there by altering the fairness perception instantly by 15ish%. And the growth post Dec 10 was not accomplished in a vacuum ... the new UCH made decisions based upon the legacy contracts in place at MCD ... by JCBA effective date, the LCAL contract resulted in about 500 more pilot jobs, while yours delivered none ... another 10ish% skew to the 2010 relative snapshot. So contrary to the popular blue side mantra, there was an immediate swing of up to 25ish% in relative seniority when the reference point is pre merger policy change precedents and pre-JCBA contracts. I'd be quite happy in your shoes too.

Maybe you misunderstood me ... I am a ALPA MIGS, and I wear my ALPA pin, in part, so that the company knows that I am an ALPA member in good standing. If a decert of ALPA and starting over from scratch is equivalent to "exacting revenge", then yes, I am guilty. I really don't see a way forward in unity any other way.

 

That's not it at all. L-CAL wanted ONLY a status and category merger. Not only this, but they "recalculated" the number of United Captains to make it the same, then "recalculated" how many FO's United should really have had based on LCAL guppy staffing. Hence UAL was "overstaffed" by 1,400 pilots.

No one bought that.

The arbitrators went 65% with status and category using actual positions on the roster as of the merger in 2010. Only 35% went to longevity, so it was essentially a status and category merger (2/3) and only longevity (1/3) which is why UAL 1999 hires are junior to CAL 2007 hires. Yes, UAL did benefit from bringing larger equipment overall, and the argument that the 747s would be immediately parked no one bought either. They are here until at least 2022 as of last announcement.

I keep hearing the word "active" pilot. Well it was a "seniority list" integration, not an "active pilot" integration. Its clearly obvious that one side wanted to 100% use only status and category (i.e. Status = Pilot, Category = Captain,FO) completely ignoring types of airplanes and longevity.

You can bet that UAL pilots did not stand up and say "Lets make merger policy longevity" because USAir was an airline that we were potentially going to merge with as well. It was Brucia, a CAL pilot with decent longevity that wanted to add that.

It seems like guys are still stomping their feet demanding that someone listen to them that all the furloughees should have been stapled (except the CAL furloughees) and a guppy Captain is just like a 747 Captain because they both have 4 stripes. Well if CAL had merged with Alaska you can bet you wouldn't have proposed 1 for 1 and that you would have demanded that the 777s, 767s, 787's on order, and 757's be treated as a higher status and category. I'd bet money on that.

The CAL proposal was tailored the way it was because UAL had larger aircraft, and pilots with more longevity.

The UAL proposal was far from perfect, but it would work well in many mergers, and the arbitrators (who are not ALPA arbitrators, they are just arbitrators) recognized this and agreed.

It's too bad guys can't get over this, and just look at the math and read the award. Certainly depending on where you are on the list and your age you were affected more than other pilots.

Every CAL guy I've met has been super great. Probably better attitudes than many LUAL pilots because we were crapped on by management for so many years. Yes, they complain about the SLI, but they don't understand why it came down the way it did, they just hang on to talking points that weren't true, nor the failed attempt to put a far out proposal hoping there would be a "meet in the middle" by the arbitrators.

I know guys are going to say for years they got screwed because their relative percentage dropped, etc. Well then they should change the merger policy to "relative percentage" (two words which do not appear in policy) and then hope we don't merger with a much younger pilot group, or an all guppy airline.

So I'm sorry we don't agree on this, but the list is not going to change and the only thing I can hope for is that people can have a better understanding as to why the arbitrators decided what they did and leave the conspiracy theories out of this because its not really productive.

 

No there wasn't. No where did anyone move close to this.

I've heard the comparisons which are CAL 2013 list that has 600+ LUAL pilots on the bottom of it, compared to the UAL 2010 list without furloughees. That's called "skewed" and not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Also....

Let me ask you this. Does longevity mean anything? if so, does it skew relative seniority. What does policy say about longevity?

Also, does "status and category" mean anything? If so, does it skew relative seniority? Would you be happy with a relative seniority merger with Expressjet?

I think the "relative seniority" list that was put out in 2010 by someone set the benchmark for a relative seniority merger. That seems to be all I hear about.

Relative seniority doesn't mean anything. The only reason DAL/NWA was close overall was because longevity was not part of merger policy, and both carriers were close in types and ratios of airplanes they flew from top to bottom.

Maybe if the CAL proposal was relative seniority, the arbitrators would have accepted it. But that wasn't proposed.

Also, ALPA didn't force the CAL MC to put forth a proposal that was so far out of policy, it was likely (and ultimately) to be completely disregarded.

 

Great points and excellent re-hash of the ISL. In my years at United I have flown with pilots from PanAm, National Airline, Capitol and Eastern.
Eastern is an example of an airline raped by Frank Lorenzo so it is a special case but the remainder of the aforementioned airlines to a man, all think they were screwed by the merger - one way or another. I lost close to 800 numbers in this merger BUT I expected to LOSE numbers but I lost no number to someone junior to me (date of hire wise) so I can't possibly know how angry I would be if that had happened to me. Having said that, JP et al, at the former CAL, laid down some unreal expectations and convinced his pilot group they were fair and equitable. And three neutral arbitrators felt they were not except for JP's vision of fences (747, 787) which we are now operating under. I except the fact that our ISL was created as the result of THREE neutral arbitrators with no axe to grind. If there is any proof that those arb's were NOT neutral then I would definitely change my opinion

 

WOW, I can't believe I'm going to say this but, "GOOD POST"! While you and I don't agree on much I think you stated your case well! And believe it or not I agree(with the process). And I wish our Merger Comm. would have made a better case but they didn't!(I didn't feel it was that rational, and I let them know! The only break I will give them is that they had to go first!!) I think in the end the list came out about as "fairly" as it could have!! This doesn't always make me that popular. I think it's time to move on, and hope there is movement UP for everyone!!