It is covered under closing a base, and opening a new base as the time it is closed is irrelevant. As has been noted the SEA 777 pilots were given this protection and the base was not reopened. Read MOU 14.

I am not sure why you want to bring up the SLI. I am not upset with it. Why would anyone complain to JP about the SLI? It was in the hands if the MC and the MEC and officers were not involved in the process.

What will I be right about if they pass this? As I have repeatedly said I do not think it will pass.

 

You are trying to get him in trouble with his wife aren't you.

 

And the pending displacement isn't either a base closure or base opening, so they aren't the same thing. So the comparison to those MOUs aren't relevant.

 

Ha! Fair and equitable? Yeah right! I'm sure the LUAL pilot that was 99% system wide in 2010 that was merged in with LCAL pilots that were 70% system wide in 2010 thought the SLI was fair and equitable! You have pilots that were barely holding RSV Airbus in the most junior LUAL base back in 2010 that are now senior line holders in all bases!!!

There were over 600 plus pilots that were unemployed (from LUAL) placed in front of active LCAL pilots! Not only did this screw the bottom third LCAL pilots, it also skewed a huge portion of the overall award for the LUAL side. LUAL brought 7400 pilots to the merger but only 6000 jobs! You guys threw a hissy fit over the CAL proposal that placed furloughed CAL pilots ahead of active UAL pilots. Yet, it's all of a sudden fair and equitable when the roles are reversed???

Let's stop the nonsense. This list was no where near fair and equitable.

 

Whoa! Your numbers are WAY off dude.

Bottom UAL pilots put at 70%???? GMAB.

The LUAL guys I know (that were furloughed) were basically stapled. They went in front of a few VERY junior CAL guys.

The reality is that the top of the list got pretty close to DOH. After 1996…the CAL guys started gaining ground in a MAJOR way (LCAL 2005 hires going senior to 1998 LUAL hires who had NEVER been furloughed).

If we had known that your SLI negotiating team was going to be SO bad…we could have really gotten more. The arbitrators basically threw your list out since it was so ridiculous (staple bottom 2,800 LUAL pilots under your most junior 2010 hire….including active Captains!).

 

Untied,

Mitch is spot on. Numbers are good and there is some tough pills to swallow on the CAL.

Untied,
You are spot on with the Cal negotiating committee and their proposal.

So now what do we do guys?

 

No. The CAL proposal put furloughed CAL pilots ahead of pilots that were Captains on the Merger date, hired in 1996, and some of which had been Captains for 11 years.

Those furloughed pilots got credit for their longevity, which is why they were placed where they were. Longevity is part of merger policy and it has to be used as a factor.

Also the myth that the furloughed pilots somehow pushed the other pilots up the list isn't correct. There could have been 5,000 pilots on furlough, the status and category of the active pilots plus the longevity of the active pilots would have been the same. There would just be more pilots spread out at the bottom.

 

The ratio of UAL to CAL pilots was about 1.5 to 1 but the bottom 2,000 pilots on the list are 6.5 UAL to 1 CAL. So they were basically stapled, with a few guys hired in 1999 placed in with the 2006 hires.

That's no windfall.

Truth is that the LUAL pilot group was a more senior group. The pipe dream of merging in pure relative active seniority when CAL was a mostly guppy airline and UAL was mostly 757s and bigger with only 150 guppy sized airplanes was also a big factor.

Numbers don't lie and it was a numbers merger.

The size of the airplanes brought to the merger as well as the longevity of the pilot groups is what drove the placing. Nothing more.

I'm not thrilled with it either, but at least I understand why we were only given 35% credit for our longevity and am willing to move on.

 

It shows that the 747, 777 deals were carve outs from the contract. A carve out from the same part of section 8 that these guys are asking for.

 

What do we do now? No divisive special deals and start building some unity before contact negotiations begins.