Probe

So who is really to blame for the shafting the UAL furloughees? I am not so sure.

If we agree to cut their longevity to affect the SLI, and the contract is ratified, that means, at least to me, that both UAL and CAL pilots agree that longevity (or DOH for most of us) is an important discriminator for the SLI, that both agree with. If that staples UAL furloughees, then, guess what, All CAL pilots hired after 99-01 would probably be stapled BELOW all UAL pilots hired before that time.

While the bottom CAL pilots would be above all of our furloughees dated back to 99-01, those same pilots would have to be stapled below all UAL pilots hired before that date. I can't see any arbitrator that would use longevity to on one part of the list, but then use relative seniority on another part of the list.

If this is the case, then JH is to blame not JP, and the bottom 2/3 of the CAL list might end up stapled below the current active UAL list. Maybe JH outmaneuvered JP, and JP wasn't smart enough to realize it.

Just an opinion.

thor2j

Once again you have to stop focussing on longevity being the only factor. It can be weighted from 0-infinity by arbitrators. No group of arbitrators are going to make a landslide either way. Theyre not going to take someone 99.9% on their active list and put them ahead of captains, not gonna happen.
What your own union along with cal MEC is doing to longevity to furloughs is bs. Both jays are to blame.
No furlough in ALPA history has ever gone ahead of an active employee in a merger. Wendy said this 2 years ago.

The bottom 2/3 of cal goes back to 1987 so don't think they are gonna be stapled below the active ual list.

Probe

Sorry thor2j, I didn't mean to imply that I thought the SLI should be done one way or another. But it sort of of sounds like J and J think they do.

My opinion means squat, even to me. Someone else will decide, and I am pretty sure they aren't going to ask me. Whatever the result, I accept it, figure out how to adjust, and then get on in life. These three decisions will take about 5 minutes each.

If the TA passes, then the J's have made a carve out, and both pilot groups will have agreed to this. The SLI that comes later will legally stand. I think an arbitrator will be involved, even if he just rubber stamps what the J's already agreed to. If they arbitrator stamps it, the lawyers stay away.

For UAL guys who had their longevity credit, they will probably sue, and win their longevity. They will probably then sue to change the SLI. I am not a labor lawyer, so I wouldn't try to guess what a judge would decide.

It sounds like UAL management hasn't been holding this up, but our respective MEC's. I would bet the NMB spent more time trying to keep the MEC's from killing each other, than working between ALPA and UCAL.

mossimo

"No furlough in ALPA history has ever gone ahead of an active employee in a merger. Wendy said this 2 years ago"

Funny how these Master Chairman can make inaccurate statements. Please reference the Pan Am/National pilot merger.

Coto Pilot

No merger has ever occured using ALPA's current merger policy

Baron50

To sum up that situation, Pan Am pilots with 15 years seniority and considerable longevity were on the street while National pilots with less were working. The Arb decided that the new relative seniority of the Pan Am furloughee's would be decided only when and if they were recalled, based on longevity. Essentially the furloughee's longevity was fixed while the National working pilots continued to accrue theirs. Obviously, this was a controversial decision, but an example of what Arbs can do.

Wendy, was not totally wrong, nevertheless there are exceptions to the general rule.

Baron

thor2j

Nor do the arbitrators have to follow it at all.

Who's to say that these scam artist MECs don't already have a game plan in mind. It wouldnt suprise me if this never gets to arbitration and j and j sell some more people out.