404yxl

Ok, now you are just ignoring what the West said. They stated AWARD, not what CAL or UAL argued. The AWARD. The final SLI at UAL/CAL had UAL furloughs placed above some active CAL pilots. The West stated the AWARD had the furloughs at the bottom. It in fact, did not.

Flytolive

Please cut and paste the quote where the West stated that.

svergin

He can't. The thing he objected to was written by the UAL/CAL Arbitrators in the AWARD themselves. It was the status and categories they used to create the AWARD. Yes. The AWARD. The one they AWARDED. It was weighted 65% and Longevity 35% in the AWARD. He's trying to make a case the West claimed that was the ONLY thing that the UAL/CAL Arbitrators used, but it wasn't. They never said it either. They said the Arbitrators used those rankings in the AWARD, which they absolutely did. The final list was different because of the 35% longevity.

He's a moron. Ignore him.

Nevets

The WHOLE document is the award. Like I said, it's dozens of pages long.

404yxl

I already have cut and pasted it. But since you can't seem to check the previous page, or even the first page where it is from, here it is again.

Correct, it is not what the West stated in their document.

Flytolive

If that is what you are basing your contention upon then you are simply incorrect.

As others have said these are the 'categories' upon which the award was based. That is only one of the criteria upon which the award was based. The others include status, longevity and career expectations in the ALPA merger policy.

404yxl

It is only one of the criteria upon which the award was based. However, the West said it was the AWARD. It was not.

Flytolive

I am confident they didn't. You have taken it out of context. Please post the preceding paragraphs or better yet the whole document from which you took the quote.

svergin

He is confusing the word "award" with the final seniority list. He also doesn't understand that he grabbed the status and category list from the actual award document and thinks that means they used ONLY that method for placement.

Award = Arbitrators Report <---- word he keeps misusing
Status & Category = list of airplanes and positions <-- That's what he saw
Longevity = Length of service
Final Placement = their post-SL order on the list. <-- keeps referring to this

So he see's the S&C list from the "award" (i.e. report) and thinks that means that the arbitrators did a 100% S&C final placement. If you just replace the word Award with Report it makes sense.

Its like replacing the word "considered" to "will be used". Because that's what it means and not "we will think about it".

That's why this process uses professionals and not airline pilots.

Nevets

The context of what they said, in whole, is simply a comparison of different aspects of previous awards. They also mentioned the differing longevity, career expectations, fences, and other C&Rs. You took only one aspect of what it said and are trying to say that because of that, they are misleading. Maybe it just mislead you but it seems pretty clear that it was just a comparison of the different aspects taken into consideration of those past arbitrations.