Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > United
Houston, you have a problem? >

Houston, you have a problem?

Search

Notices

Houston, you have a problem?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-24-2015 | 05:49 PM
  #181  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,510
Likes: 109
Default

Originally Posted by flybynuts
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?
This is a trick question, right?

How's everyone's paycheck and QOL since before/after? Seriously, I'm curious.
Reply
Old 05-24-2015 | 06:07 PM
  #182  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 558
Likes: 6
Default

Originally Posted by pilot64golfer
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.
Yes, lual was more senior, and more unemployed.
Reply
Old 05-24-2015 | 06:11 PM
  #183  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
Likes: 1
Default

Originally Posted by pilot64golfer
The guy running Manpower Planning is LCAL.

You lose.
Not so fast. The guy running the airline is a former Susman Godfrey Contracted attorney named Jeff Smizek who doesn't know how to run an airline. You lose.

The guy running manpower planning is drunk by 9 am and his staffing formula/crew compliment is a derivative of the square root of his grandmother's birthday.
Reply
Old 05-24-2015 | 06:20 PM
  #184  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
From: 73 CA EWR
Default

Originally Posted by baseball
Not so fast. The guy running the airline is a former Susman Godfrey Contracted attorney named Jeff Smizek who doesn't know how to run an airline. You lose.

The guy running manpower planning is drunk by 9 am and his staffing formula/crew compliment is a derivative of the square root of his grandmother's birthday.
We all lose now everyone. ******* Thank You.

Last edited by UAL T38 Phlyer; 05-24-2015 at 07:22 PM. Reason: TOU
Reply
Old 05-24-2015 | 06:37 PM
  #185  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
Likes: 1
Default

Originally Posted by Probe
I am sorry for the negative effect on the lives of IAH pilots, but this is aviation. These pilots should not have been trained in the first place. That is all water under the bridge, but now the water is flowing OVER the bridge and the effected pilots are not going to like it.

Welcome to the big leagues.

It can't be water under the bridge with posts like this.
Reply
Old 05-25-2015 | 07:11 AM
  #186  
Shrek's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
25M+ Airline Miles
15 Years
Gets Weekends Off
50 Countries Visited
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,026
Likes: 100
Default

Originally Posted by Knotcher
Yes, lual was more senior, and more unemployed.
That right there was a classy move.......top notch.
Reply
Old 05-25-2015 | 08:08 AM
  #187  
Banned
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 0
From: A320 Cap
Default

Originally Posted by sleeves
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.
Credit where credit is due, sleeves. I disagree with your argument but you have been very civil of late which I appreciate.

In my opinion the 747/777 is NOT a carve out. Any base closing going forward will include the 24 month grandfather rights, regardless of what it is I would bet. The MOU came about because a base closing followed by a re-opening a year later was so bone headed they didn't think of it while negotiating the contract. It causes a huge expensive mess for the company, which they earned. Personally I wish we had let them sit in it and not given them 24 month relief, but it is what it is. Going forward I expect you will see base closings have 24 month recall rights by MOU 14 and regular bumps be covered under Section 8. Unless this ill conceived C171 resolution is adopted
Reply
Old 05-25-2015 | 08:24 AM
  #188  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
From: 737 Cap
Default

Originally Posted by gettinbumped
Credit where credit is due, sleeves. I disagree with your argument but you have been very civil of late which I appreciate.

In my opinion the 747/777 is NOT a carve out. Any base closing going forward will include the 24 month grandfather rights, regardless of what it is I would bet. The MOU came about because a base closing followed by a re-opening a year later was so bone headed they didn't think of it while negotiating the contract. It causes a huge expensive mess for the company, which they earned. Personally I wish we had let them sit in it and not given them 24 month relief, but it is what it is. Going forward I expect you will see base closings have 24 month recall rights by MOU 14 and regular bumps be covered under Section 8. Unless this ill conceived C171 resolution is adopted
Well stated. If they close iah guppy then absolutely there should be extended rights. That said, if the MEC pursues this resolution, done. I don't think the political or financial capital exists to make it happen, but if it does so be it.

Look, there is a lt of angst going on right now. Look at the junior man list recently posted on the other site. The junior denver 737 cap is over 4000 numbers junior to how the last "bid" went a couple of years ago. There are a bunch of us on the outside looking in...
Reply
Old 05-25-2015 | 03:11 PM
  #189  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
Likes: 1
Default

Originally Posted by Scott Stoops
Look, there is a lt of angst going on right now. Look at the junior man list recently posted on the other site. The junior denver 737 cap is over 4000 numbers junior to how the last "bid" went a couple of years ago. There are a bunch of us on the outside looking in...
I think ALPA knew this was going to happen. In the one hand they want to make sure ALPA survives the merger due to all the decertification threats going on by both DAL and UAL pilots who were angry and had vehemently threatened to remove ALPA from the property if they didn't get a windfall.

So, when ALPA gave super seniority to unemployed former pilots who still held seniority/recall rights they sort of made this problem happen and they knew it would happen. ALPA chose to deal with the fall out later and just put the lists together. You (or anyone) can say it was an independent arbitrator, but there was everyone at CAL knew the pilots would be thrown under the bus just to save ALPA.

Now that ALPA has survived, ALPA will need to reassess how it can screw those pilots some more (or not). Curious to see what happens next. I do believe in about 2 to 3 years it will all wash out, but those that are "on the outside looking in" should remember, if it wasn't for the merger they would still be unemployed and there would have been about 1400 people still looking for a job. So, if those that are trying to break the glass to get inside want to truly break the glass, so be it. But, ALPA knows that they had to stiff arm the problem for about 5 years for things to wash and then hopefully by then ALPA National could get the pilots motivated, unified, and rallied around a few common enemies (foreign cabotage, UAL management).

I am just calling it like I see it. I think ALPA knew this was going to happen, but it chose to deal with the fall out later and just get it done for the sake of the survival of the association. The buerocracy is ALPA is very strong, and their unity within the tent is a testament to the resolve of the association. Contrast that with the FA unions and see how far apart they still are.

No employees had a vote in this merger. This was a UAL/CAL management and BOD decision. All employee groups were affected and none had a choice in the outcome. While I fully respect anyone's opinion on their perception of the current situation, I think their position is formed and colored by their "legacy" company and their current position on the list and their quality of life, and their perceived justice/or injustice.

This merger was far from perfect, but it is what it is. I only hope that ALPA displays the same long term resolve and loyalty to the pilots they sacrificed via seniority in order to make this happen that they did to those that were currently unemployed when the merger took place and needed a leg up to get a paycheck.

ALPA will stiff arm it from both sides (CAL and L UAL) because ALPA knows in about 2 to 3 years, due to retirements this all blows over. By then, those looking through the window will have a new window and a new seat to go with it.
Reply
Old 05-25-2015 | 03:48 PM
  #190  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
From: Gets weekends off
Default

Originally Posted by baseball
UAL pilots who were angry and had vehemently threatened to remove ALPA from the property if they didn't get a windfall.
Well we didn't get a windfall and we didn't decert ALPA so history has shown this to be false.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Kasserine06
Military
25
03-20-2009 03:04 AM
MaydayMark
Cargo
2
03-11-2009 11:04 AM
vagabond
Technical
4
12-31-2008 04:13 PM
Chris
Flight Schools and Training
14
12-21-2008 03:08 AM
Airsupport
Regional
14
09-12-2008 08:46 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices