cadetdrivr

I think this is the weakness in your otherwise well reasoned statement. If the basis is not solid, what follows is potentially open to question.

We all need to remember that the ALPA merger policy itself changed between the implementation of DL/NWA and UAL/CAL. Nowhere in the policy used by DL/NWA is the word longevity even used, meanwhile UAL/CAL will be the first use of the revised policy where longevity is even a consideration.

UAL/CAL will be the test case for the new policy which means prior cases determined under the old policy are not necessarily precedent.

Zoomie

I don't think that's accurate, but please correct me if I'm wrong and post the documentation.

I'm pretty sure the new ALPA merger policy was signed before the DL/NWA merger and used during their integration. I could be remembering the change timeline wrong.

If someone has a date to refute this, please post the official date the merger policy changed.

Even if it was signed after DL/NWA, longevity is only 1 facet of integration. It's hard to argue that longevity, even if its been added just a few short years ago, will trump generations of airline seniority integrations, especially since longevity wasn't given a larger weight in the merger policy standards.

Your age at your carrier is basically an arbitrary number that means very little. It would mean more if the airline was not allowed to hire guys that were older or younger than a certain age. I know it means I will be forced to retire at a certain age, but due to growing/shrinking, MLA, early retirements, death, age is only one factor in how many people will retire each year.

Again, show me a merger where furloughs didn't get stapled. I wouldn't want anyone to get stapled because it sucks, but I also don't want to have my career stagnated for the next 10 years either.

I knew I should have kept my application updated at FDX when they started hiring again.

Guys, I'm out. This stuff is fun for a bit, but I also see I'm outnumbered about 8-1 with UAL pilots to CAL pilots and I don't want to get fired up.

Have at it, believe what you want. I guess the USAir East guys still believe they will overturn "binding" arbitration. I guess if they are able to do so, our entire legal system will be flooded with new lawsuits attempting to overturn years of binding arbitration based on the precedent that will set.

cadetdrivr

You are incorrect, DL/NWA used the old policy. You can look it up yourself.

Umm...wasn't the whole point of changing the policy because ALPA was not happy with the outcomes of previous mergers (cough, USAir) and wanted to modify the process going forward?

Ottopilot

I was told it was rewritten to clarify the existing policy. Who knows? Still, if were furloughed, I wouldn't expect much.

Payme

Zoomie, a few points:

First, it's easy to hold to near term career expectations and discount long term expectations when that favors your argument. The truth is they are both valid metrics.

Second, though not exactly apples to apples, Midway furloughees were merged among active Republic pilots under the new merger policy.

Third, pilots hired or recalled since the merger announcement or maybe a bit before are not relevant to the discussion because the carriers have not really been running separate operations.

Last, you can look at both seniority lists on skynet. Go to a particular percentage in the bottom half, say 75% of each list, then look back at how many younger pilots are senior on the CO side. These are pilots that will block the career progression of the UA pilots below them and still be here years after the UA pilots are gone under your relative type integration.

Not trying to say your points aren't just as valid, just that ours are valid also and it will be a difficult task for the arbitration panel to craft a fair list. The DL/NW lists were not nearly as disparate as ours are which made for a much smoother integration.

Coto Pilot

Great post Chris. The attorney's have in fact already been contacted. Like the America West pilots, the matter has to be "ripe" in the eyes of the court before anything can be done. In this case, the ISL has to be rendered to the company and then action can be taken. I am still optimistic ALPA will do the right thing. Both Jay Pierce and Wendy Morse at a town hall last winter agreed that no group had ever been treated as badly as the twice furloughed United pilots. It is time for ALPA to make it right.

Lerxst

Coto, since you previously threw out that DOH should be the method used for the ISL: "We should be following the lead of the IAM and AFA which is now DOH", and are now intimating that you are ready to lawyer up despite the fact that ALPA policy has been changed to better represent your position, can you explain exactly what you think "fair" is?

I agree that longevity for pay is a no brainer for all furloughees.

Contrary to opinions here, as a jr 737 CA I have flown with SEVERAL furloughed UA pilots who think they should be in an equivalent position when the ISL dust settles. I politely explain that if you are effectively 108% on the UA list now, how can you "fairly" lobby to end up at around 60% on the combined list?

The only FACTS pertaining to the ISL are these:

The ISL hearings will be 5 days, and will be open to the interested parties. 3 arbitrators will evaluate the presented cases from both sides and render a decision based on (in no particular weight or order, and not limited to) Category and status, Longevity, and career expectations; the last one being the most squishy and subjective of all.

The rest is just mental masturb***on.

B727gypsy

Sled,

Delta tried to address this in their merger but couldn't quite bring it off. The proposal was after the SLI was determined that each pilot group retained ownership of their "slots" on the list. For example when a LUAL pilot retires, then former LUAL pilots move up only into those slots. The same thing would occur to LCAL pilots.

Not perfect but every pilot would have approximately their current relative position on the list today while keeping their expected retirement percentage at the end of the line.

Gypsy

SlickMachine

You aren't out numbered, just the only one engaged in this. I personally choose not to participate in sli talk especially when it involves furloughs at UAL since they always seem to be grasping at straws making their argument. See above.

jsled

Zoomie and CleCPt:

I can tell you that where you retire, percentage wise, is definetly a part of career expectations. Since we have a retirement age, it is fixed with the exception of about 2% that medical out. Pretty straight forward. If you can retire as a w/b Captain pre merger, then you should be able to post merger. It's not so much the retirement, but the career earnings that come with holding a w/b Captain slot for x years before you have to punch out. That is what career expectations are all about. And since UAL has a disproportional amount of w/b to CAL, there will be some consideration there. Obviously that has to be balanced with pre-merger Category and Status, and Longevity...according to our Merger Policy. That's all I am saying. Your Category and Status argument is strong, but only 1/3 of the equation.

Sled