I wondered about this for a while...seemed to sometimes change a few times a month; sometimes I moved backwards. There was always a disparity between my CCS seniority number, and the online "Seniority Gonkulator." (Usually about 30-ish numbers).

I think when guys come back from leaves, you move backwards. Guys go out on medical or leave, you move forward. The difference in the two lists is the number of guys out on leave.

Our training department is made up of people on the seniority list...since the '85 strike anyway...so that didn't happen here. We have a union here...unlike Skywest. Welcome to the big leagues.

I'm not endorsing or defending the practice, just providing another example of the practice. Yes, I know we have a union and not a student body council like Skywest.

Now you should enjoy some of that fresh powder. You're seem a bit wound up.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the recalls of Bruce Stone and Bob Shoemaker? What do you mean why didn't they stand up against Fred and Co?

Here's the deal. After the furloughs of 9-11 the scabs came back to power because the bottom 800 folks fell off the seniority list. The votes weren't there within the body politic to affect changes within the CAL MEC structure.

ALPA keeps saying "change is slow" well, that slow rate of change is multiplied by a factor of 4 or 5 when the ability of the membership to vote for change is curtailed by the ability of the scabs to outvote the mainstream opinions and will of the pilot group.

However, after some key recalls and removal of scabs from key union leadership roles things got moving in the right direction. Remember: ALPA forgave the CAL scabs. That forgiving created an entire new breed of scab. An empowered scab. A sign of improving times was the resignation of Jay Panarello upon the election of reps in IAH who vowed to recall him. He never got recalled because he resigned first.

ALPA's been doing good in my opinion post Merger. At least here at UAL. It's been moving the ball. I am not satisfied however with ALPA's inability to prevent NAI's application. It is these sort of foreign ownership schemes that will undermine our ability to collectively bargain and compete on a fair playing field, Carriers like these will achieve a "Continental Airlines-Like-Labor Cost Advantage", and that competitive advantage will be hard to compete against on trans-atlantic routes.

It reminds me of what UAL used to allow with regard to its agreement with Aer Lingus (UAL planes/Aer Lingus Crews). Competing against carriers that have built in cost savings weather it's NAI, or the ME3 is a tough thing to do. ALPA needs to do more to level the playing field internationally.

Anyways, I hear what you are saying, but ALLOT of good folks at CAL, and allot of folks with superior skill-sets that know how to get things done. If you look at the big picture, this was a group that in my opinion was forsaken by ALPA and victimized by Lorenzo. It took a while for them to get their swagger back, but they came back and ultimately ALPA came to them. The IACP didn't go to ALPA, it was the other way around. CAL was my first choice to interview with due to its age demographics and their seniority list. UAL was my last choice due to its history with minorities and the various court rulings affecting mandatory hiring practices. It is what it is, but that's the way I saw it in the early to mid 1990's.

You know that won't happen right? If there is an age change, ALPA will have a special letter of agreement allowing the "senior pilots" to retain their original seniority, etc. There will be a special carve-out and even a honeymoon period, or a sunset period (whatever you want to call it), but there will be a window, plus or minus a period of time to allow pilots to come back to their original seniority position.

That's why we need to have ALPA out there aggressively stating that it will vigorously OPPOSE any changes to the age rule. The disharmony and discord within the membership at large outweigh any perceived short term upside in retaining the top one half of one percent of our most experienced Captains.

Every time I hear/See pilots talking about increasing (again) the retirement age, I feel that ALPA isn't doing enough to be proactive on the subject and shutdown these types of discussions.

I filed a grievance over what Abbot did. A few points:

1. ALPA wouldn't go to level 3 on the grievance.
2. Every carrier under part 121 (except CAL) retired their pilots as required by the law. But, CAL legal counsel authored their opinion and the FAA published their Q and A as regulatory in nature. Later it was redacted. But the IAH FAA FSDO office uniquely allowed these "instructors and check airman" who were medically retired to return as the FAA in Houston likely lobbied and influenced by Abbot allowed it.
3. Every other 121 airline Check airman had received letters of revocation of their check airman status upon reaching the mandatory retirement age. ( I saw the letters from DAL, AA, UA, and world check airman).
4. Arbitrator's preliminary ruling stated: "no way to correct for the damages caused to the junior pilots due to the cascading and downward affects of subsequent perm bids, vacation bids, monthly bids, and the various status changes affecting thousands of pilots below them. Another words, arbitrator had no way to calculate damages.
5. My suggestion was to re-run each and every bid the airline ran post the age change and remove the instructors/check airman form the list as if they had retired. Arbitrator too lazy for that.
6. These pilots created their own lobby group called the senior pilots coalition. They were pretty effective at manipulating the law-makers and the FAA alike. Likely strings being pulled by Fred and Pfriends of Pfred.
7. Why was the rule so uniquely interpreted and enforced at CAL? Never got fully to the bottom of that. The removal of the Q and A from the FAA website really had a chilling effect on any further discovery.

Yeah. I get a little wound up. Especially when I start thinking about things like this..

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...enate-bill/391

Rand Paul and his 29 co-sponsors (all Republican of course) trying to crush unions. It went nowhere in this Congress with a presidential veto being assured. Time will tell if he brings it up again next Congress. No veto threat this time. Maybe a filibuster? We are screwed. And this is just one example. It's been the greatest eight years of my career. Take a look at your contract and paycheck...Let's see how they look in 4 years. Politics matter. Good luck.

Sled

PS. Happy Thanksgiving

Scary indeed.

Happy Thanksgiving Sled. Hope you're able to enjoy it in your house slippers with your family.

It's inevitable that it will reappear, IMHO.

So much for a strong middle class.