Building Common Ground.
10-11-2010, 06:04 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
Given that Glenn Tilton parked 104 UAL Guppies in order to "right-size" the airline for the merger and threw all those guys under the bus, yes.
I doubt that will happen, but this merger has been in the works for years and those lost jobs are a direct result of it. Those guys paid the ultimate price and some form of consideration should be paid to them to reflect that.
I doubt that will happen, again.
And as an aside, the loss of planes caused a huge shift in seat (and pay) loss across the bottom 2/3 of the airline. 737 Captains went back to 77 and 67 F/Os seats...767 F/Os went back to 320 F/Os and so on.
We're angry for good reasons. However, along those lines we're not angry at CAL as some imply. 98 percent of the guys I fly with are mad at UAL management and the way we've been collectively boned since 9/11. They are also realists and understand the positives that this merger COULD bring to us if the company is run correctly. Mr Smisek would do well to realize that that we're not willing to forget the past and just go with the flow now that we are (soon) one carrier. The vast majority of us are not going to accept anything less than an industry leading JCBA.
The JSLI is the next step.
my 2 cents
I doubt that will happen, but this merger has been in the works for years and those lost jobs are a direct result of it. Those guys paid the ultimate price and some form of consideration should be paid to them to reflect that.
I doubt that will happen, again.
And as an aside, the loss of planes caused a huge shift in seat (and pay) loss across the bottom 2/3 of the airline. 737 Captains went back to 77 and 67 F/Os seats...767 F/Os went back to 320 F/Os and so on.
We're angry for good reasons. However, along those lines we're not angry at CAL as some imply. 98 percent of the guys I fly with are mad at UAL management and the way we've been collectively boned since 9/11. They are also realists and understand the positives that this merger COULD bring to us if the company is run correctly. Mr Smisek would do well to realize that that we're not willing to forget the past and just go with the flow now that we are (soon) one carrier. The vast majority of us are not going to accept anything less than an industry leading JCBA.
The JSLI is the next step.
my 2 cents
10-11-2010, 06:37 AM
#32
Smells like teen spirit
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Mil and Civ
Posts: 216
Given that Glenn Tilton parked 104 UAL Guppies in order to "right-size" the airline for the merger and threw all those guys under the bus, yes.
I doubt that will happen, but this merger has been in the works for years and those lost jobs are a direct result of it. Those guys paid the ultimate price and some form of consideration should be paid to them to reflect that.
I doubt that will happen, again.
And as an aside, the loss of planes caused a huge shift in seat (and pay) loss across the bottom 2/3 of the airline. 737 Captains went back to 77 and 67 F/Os seats...767 F/Os went back to 320 F/Os and so on.
We're angry for good reasons. However, along those lines we're not angry at CAL as some imply. 98 percent of the guys I fly with are mad at UAL management and the way we've been collectively boned since 9/11. They are also realists and understand the positives that this merger COULD bring to us if the company is run correctly. Mr Smisek would do well to realize that that we're not willing to forget the past and just go with the flow now that we are (soon) one carrier. The vast majority of us are not going to accept anything less than an industry leading JCBA.
The JSLI is the next step.
my 2 cents
I doubt that will happen, but this merger has been in the works for years and those lost jobs are a direct result of it. Those guys paid the ultimate price and some form of consideration should be paid to them to reflect that.
I doubt that will happen, again.
And as an aside, the loss of planes caused a huge shift in seat (and pay) loss across the bottom 2/3 of the airline. 737 Captains went back to 77 and 67 F/Os seats...767 F/Os went back to 320 F/Os and so on.
We're angry for good reasons. However, along those lines we're not angry at CAL as some imply. 98 percent of the guys I fly with are mad at UAL management and the way we've been collectively boned since 9/11. They are also realists and understand the positives that this merger COULD bring to us if the company is run correctly. Mr Smisek would do well to realize that that we're not willing to forget the past and just go with the flow now that we are (soon) one carrier. The vast majority of us are not going to accept anything less than an industry leading JCBA.
The JSLI is the next step.
my 2 cents
And how exactly does the fact YOUR management ******ed the UAL furloughed guys over have anything to do with any pilot's careers at CAL; i.e. why is it justified for a CAL flyer to be punished because Tilton furloughed a UAL guy 3 years ago - well prior to the May 2010 announcement? I'm not saying this in jest, I really want to know what you think...
As far as I know, the merger announcement happened in the spring of 2010. Prior to that, there was NO merger, whatever "right sizing" you like to call it. The slashing of UAL's fleet and labor force could also have been because you guys hemmoraghed money for multiple quarters prior to 2010...or maybe not, that's just my op.
Last, I'll take my post one step further, kind of in the same direction you took yours. When I got hired at CAL a few years ago, we had one of the fastest moving career expectations in the industry. We were hiring so many guys, and had so many retirements - guys were no-sh*t holding captain on the 737 within 3 years'ish. I literally could have been making $150K a year within 3-4 years at the company. Then of course age 65 hit us and...well, you know the rest of the story. Yet our awesome upgrade times had ZERO to do with your career or your airline in general - you were still furloughing at that point. Now, here's my question - shouldn't I be given "consideration" above UAL guys because when I was hired I could have held captain early in my career before being affected by age 65?
The answer is of course not. It had nothing to do with your collective joint airline careers, just like your airline's furloughing (or "right-sizing" as you like to call it) had nothing to do with ours. It's all in the past.
Last edited by scrapdog; 10-11-2010 at 06:51 AM.
10-11-2010, 06:57 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: Cap. 737
Posts: 293
We won't be deciding the seniority list, won't have a single thing to say about it, so the point is really pretty moot.
Having said that, in the new ALPA merger policy, longevity is one of the factors. Do I think that someone with 8 years on property (11 years seniority) should go ahead of someone with 1 or 2 (3 years of seniority)? My answer is yes. I do realize there are other factors that go into the formula, and I believe it's likely to go to arbitration in the end. The point is, everyone is entitled to their opinion but I don't have any say in the process, so what I think (or for that matter, what anyone else thinks) really doesn't matter in the end. So I'm not sure I see the sense in arguing about it.
At this point, I'm really more concerned about the JCBA and I truly hope it is a good one. As for the rest, it's all going to turn out the way it turns out and personally, I'm not going to work myself up about things I can't control.
For the record, I fully expect I will get stapled because that is just the way my career has gone thus far. Any anger I have about that will not be directed at anyone I might eventually work with regardless of whether they originally started at UAL or CAL.
Having said that, in the new ALPA merger policy, longevity is one of the factors. Do I think that someone with 8 years on property (11 years seniority) should go ahead of someone with 1 or 2 (3 years of seniority)? My answer is yes. I do realize there are other factors that go into the formula, and I believe it's likely to go to arbitration in the end. The point is, everyone is entitled to their opinion but I don't have any say in the process, so what I think (or for that matter, what anyone else thinks) really doesn't matter in the end. So I'm not sure I see the sense in arguing about it.
At this point, I'm really more concerned about the JCBA and I truly hope it is a good one. As for the rest, it's all going to turn out the way it turns out and personally, I'm not going to work myself up about things I can't control.
For the record, I fully expect I will get stapled because that is just the way my career has gone thus far. Any anger I have about that will not be directed at anyone I might eventually work with regardless of whether they originally started at UAL or CAL.
Last edited by SKMarz; 10-11-2010 at 07:15 AM.
10-11-2010, 07:45 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
We had 3 year upgrades when I got hired as well. Didn't mean anything then, and doesn't now.
As far as my assertion that this thing was in the works, well its pretty obvious wasn't it? There was a recent document floated which pretty much proves it. If I can find it, I'll toss it up here. It won't matter however.
Do I think that our guys on the street will get hosed? Yes. Do I think they should? No. That's all I'm saying.
If I were at CAL, I would be taking your side of this argument, and if you were at UAL you'd be taking mine. This ****ing contest will get us exactly nowhere. You asked for an opinion and got one you didn't like. What do you expect a UAL guy to say? "Sure, hose em again!"
As I said, our opinions are farts into the wind anyway.
As far as my assertion that this thing was in the works, well its pretty obvious wasn't it? There was a recent document floated which pretty much proves it. If I can find it, I'll toss it up here. It won't matter however.
Do I think that our guys on the street will get hosed? Yes. Do I think they should? No. That's all I'm saying.
If I were at CAL, I would be taking your side of this argument, and if you were at UAL you'd be taking mine. This ****ing contest will get us exactly nowhere. You asked for an opinion and got one you didn't like. What do you expect a UAL guy to say? "Sure, hose em again!"
As I said, our opinions are farts into the wind anyway.
10-11-2010, 09:24 AM
#35
HOSED BY PBS AGAIN
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,713
However, our two CEO's just walked (probably ran, laughing all the way) away with incredible bonuses off our backs. And just what did they do to deserve such handsome rewards, other than make us work harder and give up a LOT for THEM? We deserve a LOT more than what you think. You give me the impression you're ready to take whatever they hand you, and you'd be thankful. Glad you're not on the negotiating committee. 
10-11-2010, 09:40 AM
#36
Smells like teen spirit
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Mil and Civ
Posts: 216
We had 3 year upgrades when I got hired as well. Didn't mean anything then, and doesn't now.
As far as my assertion that this thing was in the works, well its pretty obvious wasn't it? There was a recent document floated which pretty much proves it. If I can find it, I'll toss it up here. It won't matter however.
Do I think that our guys on the street will get hosed? Yes. Do I think they should? No. That's all I'm saying.
If I were at CAL, I would be taking your side of this argument, and if you were at UAL you'd be taking mine. This ****ing contest will get us exactly nowhere. You asked for an opinion and got one you didn't like. What do you expect a UAL guy to say? "Sure, hose em again!"
As I said, our opinions are farts into the wind anyway.
As far as my assertion that this thing was in the works, well its pretty obvious wasn't it? There was a recent document floated which pretty much proves it. If I can find it, I'll toss it up here. It won't matter however.
Do I think that our guys on the street will get hosed? Yes. Do I think they should? No. That's all I'm saying.
If I were at CAL, I would be taking your side of this argument, and if you were at UAL you'd be taking mine. This ****ing contest will get us exactly nowhere. You asked for an opinion and got one you didn't like. What do you expect a UAL guy to say? "Sure, hose em again!"
As I said, our opinions are farts into the wind anyway.
Has there ever been a merger in the past since ALPA has been around where furloughed pilots went ahead of active pilots at the other company? I really have no clue and maybe someone on here has some insight...
10-11-2010, 09:41 AM
#37
Smells like teen spirit
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Mil and Civ
Posts: 216
We won't be deciding the seniority list, won't have a single thing to say about it, so the point is really pretty moot.
Having said that, in the new ALPA merger policy, longevity is one of the factors. Do I think that someone with 8 years on property (11 years seniority) should go ahead of someone with 1 or 2 (3 years of seniority)? My answer is yes. I do realize there are other factors that go into the formula, and I believe it's likely to go to arbitration in the end. The point is, everyone is entitled to their opinion but I don't have any say in the process, so what I think (or for that matter, what anyone else thinks) really doesn't matter in the end. So I'm not sure I see the sense in arguing about it.
At this point, I'm really more concerned about the JCBA and I truly hope it is a good one. As for the rest, it's all going to turn out the way it turns out and personally, I'm not going to work myself up about things I can't control.
For the record, I fully expect I will get stapled because that is just the way my career has gone thus far. Any anger I have about that will not be directed at anyone I might eventually work with regardless of whether they originally started at UAL or CAL.
Having said that, in the new ALPA merger policy, longevity is one of the factors. Do I think that someone with 8 years on property (11 years seniority) should go ahead of someone with 1 or 2 (3 years of seniority)? My answer is yes. I do realize there are other factors that go into the formula, and I believe it's likely to go to arbitration in the end. The point is, everyone is entitled to their opinion but I don't have any say in the process, so what I think (or for that matter, what anyone else thinks) really doesn't matter in the end. So I'm not sure I see the sense in arguing about it.
At this point, I'm really more concerned about the JCBA and I truly hope it is a good one. As for the rest, it's all going to turn out the way it turns out and personally, I'm not going to work myself up about things I can't control.
For the record, I fully expect I will get stapled because that is just the way my career has gone thus far. Any anger I have about that will not be directed at anyone I might eventually work with regardless of whether they originally started at UAL or CAL.
10-11-2010, 11:26 AM
#38
Recommend Retention
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Bigfoot
Posts: 1,077
Being a "Glass Half Full" kinda guy, I'm hoping I can start a thread where we build some common ground. I for one am excited to be a part of the world's largest airline and understand that the process of integration is difficult but that having the pilot groups working together will result in an infinitely superior result versus the calamity that otherwise would come from a brawl. So here it is: my thoughts on what we ALL have in common.
1) I like my job, and would like to strengthen my future job security.
2) I believe I am underpaid at present.
3) The Aer Lingus IAD-MAD flight is an attack on our union and profession and must be stopped.
4) Feeders are a reality that can't be undone, but it's time to draw the line and keep Continental's 50 seat restriction.
5) I expect my quality of life to get better NOT worse.
6) I have no desire to benefit from the SLI at the expense of CAL pilots, but I hope not to be hurt either (although I sure would like to be EWR based and stop commuting . . . anyone want to trade IAD 767 for EWR 767
)
So that's it for now. I know those are the easy ones, and I know it's tempting for the cynical side of our brain to step in with a "you're such a naive loser" comment, but I hope anyone posting here will work towards a positive discussion on what we have in common.
Cheers,
JP
1) I like my job, and would like to strengthen my future job security.
2) I believe I am underpaid at present.
3) The Aer Lingus IAD-MAD flight is an attack on our union and profession and must be stopped.
4) Feeders are a reality that can't be undone, but it's time to draw the line and keep Continental's 50 seat restriction.
5) I expect my quality of life to get better NOT worse.
6) I have no desire to benefit from the SLI at the expense of CAL pilots, but I hope not to be hurt either (although I sure would like to be EWR based and stop commuting . . . anyone want to trade IAD 767 for EWR 767
)So that's it for now. I know those are the easy ones, and I know it's tempting for the cynical side of our brain to step in with a "you're such a naive loser" comment, but I hope anyone posting here will work towards a positive discussion on what we have in common.
Cheers,
JP
(Dulles residing EWR 757/767 FO)
10-11-2010, 11:45 AM
#39
Fore!
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 756 F/O
Posts: 505
Last, I'll take my post one step further, kind of in the same direction you took yours. When I got hired at CAL a few years ago, we had one of the fastest moving career expectations in the industry. We were hiring so many guys, and had so many retirements - guys were no-sh*t holding captain on the 737 within 3 years'ish. I literally could have been making $150K a year within 3-4 years at the company. Then of course age 65 hit us and...well, you know the rest of the story. Yet our awesome upgrade times had ZERO to do with your career or your airline in general - you were still furloughing at that point. Now, here's my question - shouldn't I be given "consideration" above UAL guys because when I was hired I could have held captain early in my career before being affected by age 65?
10-11-2010, 12:16 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: 737
Posts: 590
So, what exactly are you saying, your statement is pretty vague? Are you saying their "consideration" should be going above active guys on the CAL seniority list?
And how exactly does the fact YOUR management ******ed the UAL furloughed guys over have anything to do with any pilot's careers at CAL; i.e. why is it justified for a CAL flyer to be punished because Tilton furloughed a UAL guy 3 years ago - well prior to the May 2010 announcement? I'm not saying this in jest, I really want to know what you think...
As far as I know, the merger announcement happened in the spring of 2010. Prior to that, there was NO merger, whatever "right sizing" you like to call it. The slashing of UAL's fleet and labor force could also have been because you guys hemmoraghed money for multiple quarters prior to 2010...or maybe not, that's just my op.
Last, I'll take my post one step further, kind of in the same direction you took yours. When I got hired at CAL a few years ago, we had one of the fastest moving career expectations in the industry. We were hiring so many guys, and had so many retirements - guys were no-sh*t holding captain on the 737 within 3 years'ish. I literally could have been making $150K a year within 3-4 years at the company. Then of course age 65 hit us and...well, you know the rest of the story. Yet our awesome upgrade times had ZERO to do with your career or your airline in general - you were still furloughing at that point. Now, here's my question - shouldn't I be given "consideration" above UAL guys because when I was hired I could have held captain early in my career before being affected by age 65?
The answer is of course not. It had nothing to do with your collective joint airline careers, just like your airline's furloughing (or "right-sizing" as you like to call it) had nothing to do with ours. It's all in the past.
And how exactly does the fact YOUR management ******ed the UAL furloughed guys over have anything to do with any pilot's careers at CAL; i.e. why is it justified for a CAL flyer to be punished because Tilton furloughed a UAL guy 3 years ago - well prior to the May 2010 announcement? I'm not saying this in jest, I really want to know what you think...
As far as I know, the merger announcement happened in the spring of 2010. Prior to that, there was NO merger, whatever "right sizing" you like to call it. The slashing of UAL's fleet and labor force could also have been because you guys hemmoraghed money for multiple quarters prior to 2010...or maybe not, that's just my op.
Last, I'll take my post one step further, kind of in the same direction you took yours. When I got hired at CAL a few years ago, we had one of the fastest moving career expectations in the industry. We were hiring so many guys, and had so many retirements - guys were no-sh*t holding captain on the 737 within 3 years'ish. I literally could have been making $150K a year within 3-4 years at the company. Then of course age 65 hit us and...well, you know the rest of the story. Yet our awesome upgrade times had ZERO to do with your career or your airline in general - you were still furloughing at that point. Now, here's my question - shouldn't I be given "consideration" above UAL guys because when I was hired I could have held captain early in my career before being affected by age 65?
The answer is of course not. It had nothing to do with your collective joint airline careers, just like your airline's furloughing (or "right-sizing" as you like to call it) had nothing to do with ours. It's all in the past.
The slicing of the fleet was directly because of the upcoming merger.
They dont plan 6 months in advance..they plan ahead years..especially for a merger of this size.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
stp84
Flight Schools and Training
13
07-12-2014 11:58 AM
Elcapiperu
Flight Schools and Training
2
12-22-2008 08:25 PM
