SOTeric

And a fine shake tis it laddie.

Erin go bragh.

Sonny Crockett

Maybe everyone should read CAL pilot James Brucia's thoughts on this?

cadetdrivr

As a pilot neutral who dissented from the US Airways arbitration SLI, here is Capt. Brucia's exact words:
Is it worth noting that ALPA Merger Policy was changed as a direct result of this?

Lerxst

You need to read further where he explains what the "in the particular circumstances of this case" caveat means. He's referring to pilots furloughed on the MAD that were subsequently recalled to mainline flying positions before ISL; ironically the same position the CAL furloughees were in.

Interesting to note that the UA pilot neutral on the US integration DID NOT disagree with the Nicolau award and tacitly approved the stapling of furloughed pilots without much comment.

tkhayes90

This is the same position we now find the LUAL furloughees in. They are now into the involuntary furloughees for recalls.

cadetdrivr

Oh, I read it farther.

Capt. Brucia also used the term, "At a minimum..." when he later referenced the furloughess (who had been subsequently recalled) if his main argument was unattainable.

In reference to both the UAL pilot neutral and Nicolau himself, both later claimed (including Nicolau in the award itself) that they understood Brucia's viewpoint but as arbitrators were bound to follow the policy as written.

The subsequent ALPA Merger Policy re-write was a food fight at ALPA National, and IMHO, much of the concern at both sCAL and sUAL resides with the fear of the unknown. Considering that the policy was re-written as a result of the Nicolau award, IMHO, it more interesting as the straw that broke the earlier policy's back rather than any sort of precedence.

Lerxst

Somehow I knew you read further. Of course all parties involved with the Nic award knew they were bound by the written policy, but its interesting to note who actually stood up and put an opinion in writing and who did not.

Some of us on here have spent many a dark night crossing the Atlantic with CA Brucia and have a firsthand account of how the Nic award came down as well as the subsequent realignment of ALPA Merger Policy (he was involved in that too). Suffice it to say that many on here, from both sides, are reading what they want to read into both documents without the full history of the language and intent behind the words.

I agree with you that fear motivates all of this angst, and that neither side will get all of their wish list in the end game.

routemap

I don't believe it is the same situation. At best only a handful of involuntary furloughed LUAL pilots will come back. US Airways had significant longevity years compared to the new hire pilots at America West.

Every case is different we all understand that. History has not been nice to furloughed pilots. Historically they have not faired well. if they go from being furloughed to holding captain slots as our 2005-2006 hires are doing this will be an industry first. Guess we will find out end of summer.

Staller

Could give a whole new meaning to the term "Summer of Love"

LAX Pilot

I guess the recurring talking point coming from the CAL side is the DOH of their junior Captains. I think for them its a great strategy to just hammer this one point. I learned in law school class, if you don't have a strong argument, find one point to your advantage, and hammer it. Sort of like OJ's attorney hammering "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" Even though OJ intentionally made it look difficult to put his own glove on.

This is very misleading, and I think irrelevant for SLI for these reasons.

First of all, most of these junior Captains were awarded their bids after the merger happened. That flying growth is a result of the merger, and just because CAL management chose the CAL side over the UAL pilots is not relevant.

Secondly, we have 1995 hires who have been Captains for 14 years now. Making a 2006 hire the same seniority because they both hold a seat doesn't work. A UAL 1995 hire will be a 747 or 777 Captain in 10 years. Not so much a 2006 CAL hire. More like 20+ years. Not with only 22 airplanes. Also, just because more senior FOs at CAL have not bid Captain when they could have, does not create a long lasting career expectation for the entire pilot group. It is also a career expectation that a CAL pilot will not upgrade and sit in the right seat of an airplane for 15+ years as many of my friends have done. If they had taken the upgrades, we wouldn't have any CAL pilots junior to 1994 in the left seat of an airplane.

So I think its a great strategy to point out the false "trajectory" on the CAL side post merger, and I love the idea of hammering the DOH for the junior 757 Capt calling him a "widebody" Captain.

It looks very organized and I hear everyone with the same message.

I just think that its a weak case and when all the facts are out there, it isn't going to mean anything.

This isn't the OJ jury deciding SLI, these people are actually intelligent. When presented with facts, they will make a fair decision to both groups, and yes, that might mean someone who is now on furlough who was hired in 1999 (who might have 7 years of active time) being placed senior to someone hired in 2006. It certainly could happen with all the facts being presented.

Its just too bad that the CAL side didn't let a 777 Captain bid go to the bottom guy on the list, so you could all argue that you can all hold 777 Captain and that should somehow affect SLI.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.....