Windfall?
11-20-2010, 10:15 AM
#51
Now Old
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: Bent
Posts: 27
CAL has 147 furloughees. UAL has 1437. In accordance with precedent, all furloughees should be merged at the bottom of the list.
I fully expect UALMEC to allow the 147 CAL furloughees to be merged into the active pilot list, in violation of ALPA M&A procedures. Why? Because that's UALMEC's standard way of doing business.
And based on my previous exchanges with CAL pilots on flightinfo, many CAL pilots are more than happy with the idea of having the bottom 1437 of the combined list being comprised solely of UAL furloughees.
You're preaching to the choir on 70 seaters. UALMEC will not do anything to limit 70 seaters, as it does not benefit the top ~500. If there was a 25 cent/hr increase in pay for the senior widebody pilots, they would agree to dump all narrowbodies and have that flying outsourced. Based on previous behavior which has been extremely consistent, UAL furloughees are worth less than two bits to the senior UAL pilots.
The 747 carve out is total BS. UAL pays the same for 747 and 777 pilots, but it's of no surprise to me that they'd be pushing for a carve out. Who benefits from the carve out? The top ~500 UAL pilots. And they'll be more than happy to sell out the entire rest of the UAL seniority list for that carve out.
I fully expect UALMEC to allow the 147 CAL furloughees to be merged into the active pilot list, in violation of ALPA M&A procedures. Why? Because that's UALMEC's standard way of doing business.
And based on my previous exchanges with CAL pilots on flightinfo, many CAL pilots are more than happy with the idea of having the bottom 1437 of the combined list being comprised solely of UAL furloughees.
You're preaching to the choir on 70 seaters. UALMEC will not do anything to limit 70 seaters, as it does not benefit the top ~500. If there was a 25 cent/hr increase in pay for the senior widebody pilots, they would agree to dump all narrowbodies and have that flying outsourced. Based on previous behavior which has been extremely consistent, UAL furloughees are worth less than two bits to the senior UAL pilots.
The 747 carve out is total BS. UAL pays the same for 747 and 777 pilots, but it's of no surprise to me that they'd be pushing for a carve out. Who benefits from the carve out? The top ~500 UAL pilots. And they'll be more than happy to sell out the entire rest of the UAL seniority list for that carve out.
There is no such thing as precedent regarding seniority list arbitrations. Arbitrators are free to fashion a list in a manner they deem fair and equitable, without any obligation to conform to any prior decision.
As for your widebody rant: at least half of the voting members of the UAL-MEC are nowhere close to Widebody Captain seniority. In fact, they couldn't even have been awarded an A-320 Captain position during the recently published vacancy award. Only a few MEC members have seniority to hold the left seat of the 777 or 747. So this notion that the senior pilots drive the train is crap. And I believe both MECs have scope very high on the priority list.
narrowbody sl0wr0ll3r
11-20-2010, 02:52 PM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 165
CAL has 147 furloughees. UAL has 1437. In accordance with precedent, all furloughees should be merged at the bottom of the list.
I fully expect UALMEC to allow the 147 CAL furloughees to be merged into the active pilot list, in violation of ALPA M&A procedures. Why? Because that's UALMEC's standard way of doing business.
And based on my previous exchanges with CAL pilots on flightinfo, many CAL pilots are more than happy with the idea of having the bottom 1437 of the combined list being comprised solely of UAL furloughees.
You're preaching to the choir on 70 seaters. UALMEC will not do anything to limit 70 seaters, as it does not benefit the top ~500. If there was a 25 cent/hr increase in pay for the senior widebody pilots, they would agree to dump all narrowbodies and have that flying outsourced. Based on previous behavior which has been extremely consistent, UAL furloughees are worth less than two bits to the senior UAL pilots.
The 747 carve out is total BS. UAL pays the same for 747 and 777 pilots, but it's of no surprise to me that they'd be pushing for a carve out. Who benefits from the carve out? The top ~500 UAL pilots. And they'll be more than happy to sell out the entire rest of the UAL seniority list for that carve out.
I fully expect UALMEC to allow the 147 CAL furloughees to be merged into the active pilot list, in violation of ALPA M&A procedures. Why? Because that's UALMEC's standard way of doing business.
And based on my previous exchanges with CAL pilots on flightinfo, many CAL pilots are more than happy with the idea of having the bottom 1437 of the combined list being comprised solely of UAL furloughees.
You're preaching to the choir on 70 seaters. UALMEC will not do anything to limit 70 seaters, as it does not benefit the top ~500. If there was a 25 cent/hr increase in pay for the senior widebody pilots, they would agree to dump all narrowbodies and have that flying outsourced. Based on previous behavior which has been extremely consistent, UAL furloughees are worth less than two bits to the senior UAL pilots.
The 747 carve out is total BS. UAL pays the same for 747 and 777 pilots, but it's of no surprise to me that they'd be pushing for a carve out. Who benefits from the carve out? The top ~500 UAL pilots. And they'll be more than happy to sell out the entire rest of the UAL seniority list for that carve out.
Andy,
I think you are a UAL furlough and I can state that I personally know all the merger cmtte members. They are very motivated, impressive guys and I will tell you they are fighting for every UAL pilot. furloughed include.They cant make an arbitrator do something but they will put many arguements out there. They are honestly trying their best to get the best deal for you. In all fairness Im sure CAL NC is doing the same I know two of their guys and they are sharp pilots. I will assure you the UAL NC guys would resign if the MEC said sell out the furloughed guys for the top 500. Ialso dont think the MEC would do that.
A pay agreement was reached between the MEC's is the good news.
30west
Last edited by 30west; 11-20-2010 at 03:27 PM. Reason: typo and insensitive post
11-21-2010, 06:32 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: 737 CAPT
Posts: 1,905
Question on the point made in this quote. UAL has pilots on voluntary furlough with 1978 to 1997 DOHs. My understanding is your seniority number at your airline can never change. I.E. the pilot 1 senior to you will remain so as will the pilot 1 number junior. You believe the 1978 hire will be stapled to the bottom of the new list when this goes to the arbitrator?
So the question becomes: how many of the 1437 "furloughs" are really "furloughs" and how many "voluntarily" took some type of leave to prevent other furloughs (what you call a voluntary furlough)?
Say 500 took some form of vol. furlough/leave, leaving 937 with absolutely no choice but being furloughed, then that 937 would be what we are talking about from the UAL list. However, I don't think any of us at CAL know this real number. We have guys on leaves of various types right now, but when we say furlough we mean those who were shown the street with no recourse or options for management's poor planning. That is the 147 number we mention.
So again: does anyone have the breakdown of the real furloughs of the 1437 quoted? How many are voluntary vs. how many were kicked to the curb?
11-21-2010, 07:14 AM
#54
work nights and weekends
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: United SFO B-737
Posts: 202
Around 15% of the furloughed pilots were volunteers with top 60 volunteers holding Captain seniority. 1437 were going to be furloughed, 1437 were. The voluntary program kept a few at the bottom (150) of the list from furlough. Big difference with a CAL LOA is no one comes back until recalls start. That was the danger in volunteering, you could be off the property forever (highly unlikely, but possible).
Last edited by JMD16; 11-21-2010 at 07:41 AM.
11-21-2010, 04:27 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 165
Around 15% of the furloughed pilots were volunteers with top 60 volunteers holding Captain seniority. 1437 were going to be furloughed, 1437 were. The voluntary program kept a few at the bottom (150) of the list from furlough. Big difference with a CAL LOA is no one comes back until recalls start. That was the danger in volunteering, you could be off the property forever (highly unlikely, but possible).
The rest are involuntary furloughs, of that number no idea on those coming back but half to three-quarters is a good wag.So about 540 to 810 will actually come back in that group.
Just so you know most of the ALPA folks guess UAL work rules at CAL brings back at a min 400ish pilots right off the bat. Thats with no contract improvements. Ive heard we already have aggreement in some areas increasing staffing and all this is without any changes by the proposed FAA rule change.
30west
11-21-2010, 05:14 PM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 363
Out of curiosity, what happens to the most junior active pilot on the UAL side who kept his/her job because enough senior took the voluntary furlough? Seems like you can't really deny they are still active pilots in SLI terms. How many different statuses can we really have here else?
Just curious what the opinions are out there...
KC
Just curious what the opinions are out there...
KC
11-21-2010, 05:38 PM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 165
Out of curiosity, what happens to the most junior active pilot on the UAL side who kept his/her job because enough senior took the voluntary furlough? Seems like you can't really deny they are still active pilots in SLI terms. How many different statuses can we really have here else?
Just curious what the opinions are out there...
KC
Just curious what the opinions are out there...
KC
30west
11-21-2010, 06:24 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 787 CA
Posts: 425
Which is exactly what Lorenzo Jr. hopes to avoid by ramping up the outsourced flying between now and then. By violating our scope he's both setting a precedent for the contract and compensating for the inevitable work rule improvements. Management will attempt to placate us with (worthless) promises of "no furloughs" for a year or so when the truth of the matter is they'd have to actually hire hundreds to accomodate the new work rules - IF we stand firm on outsourcing.
11-22-2010, 04:24 AM
#60
On Reserve
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 17
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Carl Spackler
Mergers and Acquisitions
495
06-28-2008 07:11 PM
