CAL-UAL, who needs it?
11-09-2010, 02:37 PM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: Cap. 737
Posts: 293
When I was hired in 99', the average expected upgrade was around 2.5 years and there were guys junior to me in the right seat of the 747.
In any event, that was then, this is now and the seniority ****ing match is one that will battled out by the powers that be. It seems to me that due to our respective MECs inability to present a united front (pun intended), it will be eons before we ever see an ISL.
In any event, that was then, this is now and the seniority ****ing match is one that will battled out by the powers that be. It seems to me that due to our respective MECs inability to present a united front (pun intended), it will be eons before we ever see an ISL.
11-09-2010, 03:22 PM
#52
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
That we know.
11-09-2010, 03:37 PM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: A320/A319/B737 Sys Acft Maint Controller
Posts: 303
Here's a question.
Since CAL DIDN'T go Bankrupt in 2002 and UAL DID then Why is it CAL believes that the UAL ALPA Pilots have to make Less and stay banded when the concept was a "forced Rape" during Bankruptcy?? Are the UAL ALPA pilots NOT to recover what they gave up since the airline UAL and CAL are now making money? And even though there is a "proposed" Merger all things are NOT necessarily equal As I see it. NOT until what was before LOST is now regained and Both Pilot groups are "Made whole" to start from a Level playing field. Am I wrong in this assumpton?? If I had pay taken AWAY and now It's returned and I am once again "restored" (in as much as one Can be restored at United) ONLY then would I be in a position to advance to the "Next Level"
For negotiating a joint contract (IMHO).. Because to accept a "Banding" program that was IMPOSED upon me seems to be Working from a defecit rather than a Level playing field. I could be mistaken, and If I am then might someone PLEASE correct my logic?
From where I sit, our Worthy colleagues from Continental Shouldn't have any Say in when or How the UAL pilots recover what they lost. ONLY that what was once Lost is recovered IN FULL! Then and ONLY THEN would Both groups be on "Par" to advance a Joint Bargaining agreement and the Single Labor Intergration. Not ONLY would this be logical for the pilots but for the other Labor Groups as well I believe. So would SOMEONE
Please tell my Why there is this petty Squabbling??. Because I don't UNDERSTAND!!!
Thank you all in advance for any Logic you might render on my behalf to advance my knowlege and Wisdom..
Since CAL DIDN'T go Bankrupt in 2002 and UAL DID then Why is it CAL believes that the UAL ALPA Pilots have to make Less and stay banded when the concept was a "forced Rape" during Bankruptcy?? Are the UAL ALPA pilots NOT to recover what they gave up since the airline UAL and CAL are now making money? And even though there is a "proposed" Merger all things are NOT necessarily equal As I see it. NOT until what was before LOST is now regained and Both Pilot groups are "Made whole" to start from a Level playing field. Am I wrong in this assumpton?? If I had pay taken AWAY and now It's returned and I am once again "restored" (in as much as one Can be restored at United) ONLY then would I be in a position to advance to the "Next Level"
For negotiating a joint contract (IMHO).. Because to accept a "Banding" program that was IMPOSED upon me seems to be Working from a defecit rather than a Level playing field. I could be mistaken, and If I am then might someone PLEASE correct my logic?
From where I sit, our Worthy colleagues from Continental Shouldn't have any Say in when or How the UAL pilots recover what they lost. ONLY that what was once Lost is recovered IN FULL! Then and ONLY THEN would Both groups be on "Par" to advance a Joint Bargaining agreement and the Single Labor Intergration. Not ONLY would this be logical for the pilots but for the other Labor Groups as well I believe. So would SOMEONE
Please tell my Why there is this petty Squabbling??. Because I don't UNDERSTAND!!!
Thank you all in advance for any Logic you might render on my behalf to advance my knowlege and Wisdom..
11-09-2010, 03:45 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 645
SoCal almost everything you said was a synopsis of what I had said. I agree with you that an arbitration board will eventually make a decision, just as was the the case in the USAir/Cactus merger. My point is that the arbitrators decision in that merger still has not been implemented five years after the deal was agreed to. It is like people buying a home in a depressed market, the buyers beat down the seller on price to something less than fair, only to find that they can't get a loan for the home because it won't appraise. The calls on this forum to staple an 11 year United pilot below a 3,4 or 5 year Continental one with fewer years on the property will not happen. If an arbitrator did make that decision, which I am certian they won't based on the new merger policy, it will be a long time before the merged list is accepted by the company. I think all of us involved will know whether the decision eventually rendered is fair or not. As has been said before, a fair decision is going to have just about everyone but a few at the very top, at least a little ****ed off.
11-09-2010, 03:52 PM
#57
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
11-09-2010, 03:59 PM
#58
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
SoCal almost everything you said was a synopsis of what I had said. I agree with you that an arbitration board will eventually make a decision, just as was the the case in the USAir/Cactus merger. My point is that the arbitrators decision in that merger still has not been implemented five years after the deal was agreed to. It is like people buying a home in a depressed market, the buyers beat down the seller on price to something less than fair, only to find that they can't get a loan for the home because it won't appraise. The calls on this forum to staple an 11 year United pilot below a 3,4 or 5 year Continental one with fewer years on the property will not happen. If an arbitrator did make that decision, which I am certian they won't based on the new merger policy, it will be a long time before the merged list is accepted by the company. I think all of us involved will know whether the decision eventually rendered is fair or not. As has been said before, a fair decision is going to have just about everyone but a few at the very top, at least a little ****ed off.
If your talking about the clip below, you may want address the 'correct person' who 'wrote' it in response to you. Barking up the wrong tree if that in fact is what your refering too.....??
I have read and reread this a couple of times. I think you either don't understand the case you are trying to cite or you are trying to use completely different facts to support your argument.
The case you are referring to was the West Pilots against USAPA. The West Pilots filed a DFR lawsuit. The pilots the court said had not yet been harmed are the West pilots NOT the East pilots. The court was not talking about the East pilots in this case. The Nicolau award list was thrown out by USAPA, but since the two groups are not yet merged under one JCBA the judge has indicated the West's case is not ripe. IF a new JCBA is ratified that uses a list other than the Nicolau award, then the West pilots would have been "wronged" and their case would be ripe for hearing.
This situation is different. We have agreements in place that state the SLI will not take place prior to the ratification of a JCBA. Should the SLI go to an arbitrator as 125% of us believe, it will be his binding decision on the groups. From what you are saying, your group is ready to use the USAirways East dictionary version of "binding" during the SLI? And what makes you think that when it goes to an arbitrator that both sides will not fight vigorously, vocally, and emphatically for their position? How could that result in a lawsuit over the SLI for lack of fair representation in the process? Or are you suggesting that the UAL folks will somehow perform below their best in order to have an argument to make if the SLI goes in a direction not to UAL pilots' liking?
The case you are referring to was the West Pilots against USAPA. The West Pilots filed a DFR lawsuit. The pilots the court said had not yet been harmed are the West pilots NOT the East pilots. The court was not talking about the East pilots in this case. The Nicolau award list was thrown out by USAPA, but since the two groups are not yet merged under one JCBA the judge has indicated the West's case is not ripe. IF a new JCBA is ratified that uses a list other than the Nicolau award, then the West pilots would have been "wronged" and their case would be ripe for hearing.
This situation is different. We have agreements in place that state the SLI will not take place prior to the ratification of a JCBA. Should the SLI go to an arbitrator as 125% of us believe, it will be his binding decision on the groups. From what you are saying, your group is ready to use the USAirways East dictionary version of "binding" during the SLI? And what makes you think that when it goes to an arbitrator that both sides will not fight vigorously, vocally, and emphatically for their position? How could that result in a lawsuit over the SLI for lack of fair representation in the process? Or are you suggesting that the UAL folks will somehow perform below their best in order to have an argument to make if the SLI goes in a direction not to UAL pilots' liking?
11-09-2010, 04:09 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: A330 First Officer
Posts: 1,465
The calls on this forum to staple an 11 year United pilot below a 3,4 or 5 year Continental one with fewer years on the property will not happen. If an arbitrator did make that decision, which I am certian they won't based on the new merger policy, it will be a long time before the merged list is accepted by the company. I think all of us involved will know whether the decision eventually rendered is fair or not. As has been said before, a fair decision is going to have just about everyone but a few at the very top, at least a little ****ed off.
You might not like to hear it but you better prepare for the worse case scenario then be very happy if it comes out otherwise.
11-09-2010, 04:18 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: Cap. 737
Posts: 293
That's what I was getting at (or at least trying to), we won't see the merged seniority list any time soon because both MECs can't even agree on the basics to get us the JCBA. At the moment, I don't even care about the seniority lists because it won't mean squat unless JCBA is reached it protects everyone's future interests in the form of SCOPE.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
