ChrisJT6

You are correct if there is not difference in a firing v. furlough...I am glad that in my world there is a difference.

skippy

Um excuse me? Bc i was furloughed united, i had below career expectations than those at or around my seniority at cal?
Nice try, but not quite. Id wouldve rather been furloughed from ual than working at cal had they not merged. I wouldve retired 190/7650 ish than a combined 980/12000 ish. To say that i had lower career expectations is nonsense. Using the alpa merger policy, i fully expect to be senior to cal hires prob a year or two ahead of my ual hire date to compensate for the decrease in seniorty to match my original career expectations.
Ual has more pilots ( for now), parked 100 planes, has way more widebodies, and higher career progression and we acquired ( didnt merge) cal for $23/share. If u think the arbitrator wont take at least those items into account, please dont take a drug test. U wont pass

But yes, we will just wait and see.

Wrsofked

Wow...I guess the the no windfall theory isn't in your game plan there skippy...this thing will be very close to relative senority...just like delta and northwest. So you guy's, especially those furloughed, are going to have to get used to the idea that a lot of cal pilots with hire dates after their united brethren will end up senior to them. It would **** me off too, if I were in your shoes, but that's just how it will be. Better get used to the idea or spend the rest of your career miserable.

horrido27

Skippy...
I know we're friends and all, but it's not good to drink and post!
To think that someone who choose CAL in 2005-2007 should be Junior to you (who was hired in 07 and furloughed in 08) is kinda funny (in a sad way).

But it really doesn't matter what any of us say or think. It's gonna go down to Arbitration.

Me, I don't believe for one second that a furloughed United Pilot (excluding those you took the vol furlough) will be Senior to a Continental Pilot who was never furloughed.

Will there be something offered with regards to Pay/Longevity.. maybe. But that just opens up another can of worms~

Maybe we'll know something next summer.. cause chances are, that may be the earliest we'll have a ISL.

Motch

Wrsofked

Seriously? What an assinine post. Grow up...

skippy

Motch, we're still friends and havent been drinking, just thinking out loud. If u think a pilot hired with the same seniority date at each airline had the same career expectations, u are way off as my seniority states relative to ual and post merger. If one thinks furloughees will be stapled, again, wrong. Hired 07, furloughed 09 but not important. Arbitrator will decide using the guidelines of the alpa merger policy, w-2 earnings have little to do with it. Guess stalling the jcba by JP was a nice way to increase vacancies and capt slots on ur side. I applaud that move. Deals go both ways, u guys have gotten quite of bit of windfall for quite some time, $40 million profit sharing, paybanding, ual alpa agreeing to not use smisek testimony in abritrator arguement that stated to congress that "cal would cease to exist/go away if the merger didnt happen". I would think eventually that bill will come due. Ual is a more senior and larger airline, if u think that wont come into account then i dont know what more i can discuss to prove my point. I will say without a doubt, W-2 means nothing.

But again the future sli has already been decided by previous policy, its just up to the arbitrator to publish his final and binding interpretation.

To many people try to make it personal, its just " business"

horrido27

Skippy, it is "Just Business"
That's why I didn't apply to UAL back in 06/07. UAL was an airline with alot of problems. Hell, every one of the United Pilots I knew at my squadron told me to avoid the place like the plague!

Career expectations can and should come into play.. but there in lies a MAJOR problem. Some mergers bring similar carriers together, some don't.
The argument will be simple- where do we think our two airlines were headed and what does that mean for us.
Our two sides will make their presentations and then it will be up to the Arbitrator.
My side will argue that-
1) We had 149 pilots on the street at the time of the merger, a much lower percentage then you had.
2) That we had firm orders on the books for 737's and 787's. And none of them (at the time) were listed as replacement aircraft.
3) That we had the strongest Scope in the Industry.
4) That our "financials" were strong.

Obviously, your side will argue otherwise.
But in the end, it will go to arbitration.

We will never know what would have happened to our two carriers had we stay independent. But I will always believe that my career expectations were good at a stand alone Continental.
Again, all 12000+ pilots at both carriers will have very different opinions based on their current status, their age and their airline.

We'll have this discussion again in Spring/Summer 2013!

Motch

CAL 73

Ual has more pilots ( for now), ok, I'll give you that one
parked 100 planes, yes, replaced by shinny E170s and 190 contracts since no scope like CALs
has way more widebodies, which pay way less than CAL widebodies (76 is WIDE on our side)
and higher career progression hmmm..does that include furlough and 10 so years of stagnation while CAL hired massivley in 2005
and we acquired ( didnt merge) cal for $23/share. ohhh yea, thats why its our management, our reservation system, and our paintjob.

Whatever airline we all go to is a gamble how they all will workout in 10, 20 years. Don't be pi**ed that CAL flourished while United was sinking, and now try to grab slots or seniority from a CAL guy. CAL was hiring and anyone who wanted to apply could have. Reminds me of someone who once gambled and when lost, wanted a little from everyone else.

thor2j

Boy are you in for a rude awakening!

UAL T38 Phlyer

Best info I've seen on the subject. From an ALPA email last night (emphasis in last paragraph added by me):

Several pilots have contacted the MEC office or their LEC representatives with concerns about the recently posted CAL System Bid. The UAL MEC System Schedule Committee responds below:

It is important to remember that under the s-CO contract, bids are only required to be issued twice a year. The company can elect to issue System Bids more often and can also offer Adjustment Bids. Partially due to their infrequent nature, these bids must attempt to address the company’s anticipated manpower needs for an entire year. Unlike the s-UA process we are more familiar with, these bids also account for surpluses and anticipated shuffling of flying. Because they try to encompass such a broad range of issues, the bids look very large compared to what s-UA pilots are used to seeing. As we are all well aware, this type of long range manpower planning is not very accurate. Many of the bids in this system bid may be cancelled or changed if a new CAL System Bid is issued in January 2013 or by an Adjustment Bid. This bid just provides a snapshot and a method for the company to get started getting pilots where they think they will be needed.

S-CO System Bid 13-08 (projected out to August 2013) contains 451 vacancies. 71 are for planned retirements and 28 are for shifting flying between domiciles with no backfills. Most of these vacancies are in order to avoid repeating the understaffing issues they experienced on the s-CO side this summer. In addition, some of these new vacancies are the first tranche of ramping up for increased needs in a potential JCBA and an acknowledgment that many of the s-UA pilots currently flying at s-CO will elect to return to their jobs at s-UA once recalls begin at s-UA. In addition, they also account for some of the pilots who will be unavailable for flying due to contract implementation duties for management and ALPA. Finally, some of these vacancies are a small net increase due to 787 and 777 (one aircraft) deliveries over the number aircraft that come out of service on the s-CO side between now and August 2013.

On the s-UA side, since the company can wait until closer in to issue vacancies, we will see any required bids in smaller tranches. Also, largely due to the TPA but also for cost reasons, the company wants to avoid surpluses as the flying moves around the s-UA system. Any bids we see will account for retirements and adjustments in flying. Just like at s-CO, our staffing is driven by the summer peak months. Also, just like s-CO, the company projects a slight decrease in hours for next summer due to economic issues for both companies. There is no plan for a net increase in aircraft and hours at s-UA but there is a plan to replace all but 15 757s with 737 aircraft over the next two years beginning next spring. This will result in an increased training need and many other transitional issues that still have to be worked out. In addition, any increased need will be offset by the above mentioned s-UA pilots now flying at s-CO who return to s-UA. The SSC believes the company should begin furlough recalls immediately (and the issue has been repeatedly presented between the highest levels of ALPA and the company) but due to their block hour forecast, the company believes it can hold off on recalls until Q1 2013.

In short, while the raw numbers in the s-CO System Bid understandably cause concern to s-UA pilots, they must be taken into perspective. It is not a sign that flying is shifting from one side to the other. As the time comes for the company to address needs on the s-UA side, we will see bids as necessary.