Is the SLI already done?
03-31-2013, 09:09 AM
#21
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: EWR 756 Captain
Posts: 70
I see it coming out fairly relatively, with junior UAL guys getting a bit of a bump upward due to their longevity of ACTIVE service over the same relative CAL pilots. There will be some other factors that affect the placement by small percentages ie..career expectations. I don't see a windfall in the cards for either group, regardless of what ALPA merger policy is.
Don't get all ****y...its just an opinion.
Don't get all ****y...its just an opinion.
How many years of service did the Braniff & Pan Am & Eastern guys have ? So a "bump upward" as you put it is in no way fair, in fact its a windfall.
How close to CA were they after 17 years ? The only hope for those guys was to merge with another airline and grab some seniority from the other pilot group.
But I have no final say, and they may get it, in which case they are the luckiest *pilots* in the industry - but they'll still complain
(Thats just my opinion)
Last edited by UAL T38 Phlyer; 03-31-2013 at 06:36 PM. Reason: TOS
03-31-2013, 09:16 AM
#22
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: EWR 756 Captain
Posts: 70
UAL widebodies paid far less than CAL narrowbodies pre-merger.
So keep yer corroded, poorly equipped and maintained, low paying, run-out widebodies
03-31-2013, 11:04 AM
#23
Peace Love Understanding
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
It doesn't matter now because its in the hands of the arbitrators.
You guys keep quoting the talking points, but no one reading this board is on the arbitration panel and actually looking at the data shows the truth.
I'd be shocked if one United pilot had a lower relative seniority than they currently have, if not much higher, including the pilots on furlough, who are obviously coming back to the property, hence have a great career expectation.
03-31-2013, 12:10 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Position: B756 Capt Junior Lineholder
Posts: 136
Not even close. Including the 16% B-fund contribution and not even counting work rules, all aircraft types at UAL paid more than all aircraft types at CAL. 777 rates were exactly $1 less per hour, but with the 16% B-fund, they were way more. Doesn't even count trip rigs, etc.
It doesn't matter now because its in the hands of the arbitrators.
You guys keep quoting the talking points, but no one reading this board is on the arbitration panel and actually looking at the data shows the truth.
I'd be shocked if one United pilot had a lower relative seniority than they currently have, if not much higher, including the pilots on furlough, who are obviously coming back to the property, hence have a great career expectation.
It doesn't matter now because its in the hands of the arbitrators.
You guys keep quoting the talking points, but no one reading this board is on the arbitration panel and actually looking at the data shows the truth.
I'd be shocked if one United pilot had a lower relative seniority than they currently have, if not much higher, including the pilots on furlough, who are obviously coming back to the property, hence have a great career expectation.
03-31-2013, 12:32 PM
#25
Banned
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: IAH 737 CA
Posts: 690
Not even close. Including the 16% B-fund contribution and not even counting work rules, all aircraft types at UAL paid more than all aircraft types at CAL. 777 rates were exactly $1 less per hour, but with the 16% B-fund, they were way more. Doesn't even count trip rigs, etc.
It doesn't matter now because its in the hands of the arbitrators.
You guys keep quoting the talking points, but no one reading this board is on the arbitration panel and actually looking at the data shows the truth.
I'd be shocked if one United pilot had a lower relative seniority than they currently have, if not much higher, including the pilots on furlough, who are obviously coming back to the property, hence have a great career expectation.
It doesn't matter now because its in the hands of the arbitrators.
You guys keep quoting the talking points, but no one reading this board is on the arbitration panel and actually looking at the data shows the truth.
I'd be shocked if one United pilot had a lower relative seniority than they currently have, if not much higher, including the pilots on furlough, who are obviously coming back to the property, hence have a great career expectation.
I'm going with electrified.
03-31-2013, 01:10 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
But their workrules "paid" way more. With a 200+ credit-hour month for a couple of our 737 pilots, LCAL seems to be learning the value of soft time pretty quickly. I'm just happy to get adequate rest now without having to call in fatigued to get it. Between our pay and their rules it was a wash. Cost per year $187k vs $184k.
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...Equivalent.htm
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...Equivalent.htm
03-31-2013, 01:52 PM
#27
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: EWR 756 Captain
Posts: 70
And have a great career expectation as EWR756 FO, VS
junior A320 FO in ORD/SFO
Again, thanks to the merger.
So if you think those pilots deserve anything other than staple to the bottom of the combined list, perhaps they should take their red clips and entitled attitudes back out on furlough, and await recall to the L-UAL side, since its obviously been such a great career for them
03-31-2013, 03:02 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
03-31-2013, 03:59 PM
#30
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: EWR 756 Captain
Posts: 70
Would you have rather flown a min 16 day off line with layovers in FCO, CDG, any of a dozen German cities ... etc with 87 hours of pay,
or a 12 day off A320 line with 40 something hour layovers in Toronto
for less hourly pay, even at greater longevity ?
I compared schedules with yer 97, 98, 99 hires many times prior to this "merger of equals"
: indeed !!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
