13n144e

I'll take some of that. Put me down for $100. Seriously.

BTW, if you really thought they were going to use your list, why would they want a program? They'd just use the list...

routemap

Hey I'm not that cocky!

Anyway you forgot status and category and career expectations. I am pretty confident it will not be your list.

Hope you can accept the arbitration award.

intrepidcv11

I'm just glad you 'professionals' have a new piece of sassy gossip that will lead to 800 page hate fests featuring the same 10 screen names. OMG GUYS UAL ALPA HOSED THEIR FURLOGHEES AGAIN!

If APC is a shred of what this pilot group will be, I look forward to doing a lot of slam clicking...

skippy

From retiring 150 to 950, and want to furlough out of seniority?

Awesome.

Arbitrators will use a majority of ual's computer model ( to take human element and "work" out of the equation)
Arbitrators hear " computer model". They see, less work, same pay

Sunvox

Exactly, and ALPA policy was rewritten because that is what the arbitrators said in the USAirways award. As a result Longevity was added and "windfall" was taken out.

The UAL list starts with the assumption that our "career expectations" are impossible to quantify and arguably equal. So next step quantify Category and Class and Longevity. The model weights them equally as ALPA policy says "in no particular order and with no particular weight". Next the furloughed UAL pilot gets a 0 for Category and Class, but if he has 12 years longevity and the CAL pilot has 5 years longevity the UAL longevity score is more than twice the CAL score which balances out the Category and Class score of the CAL pilot.

It's not emotional, it's highly logical, it's completely transparent, it's easy for the arbitrator to calculate, it's adjustable (the arbs could weight category and class more than longevity, but that would hit the senior CAL pilots), and it's totally in keeping with the ALPA Merger Policy.


So, here we have a mathematically derived formula for weighting the factors required by ALPA Policy. What factors should be added to make this more "fair" to CAL pilots or how should the factors weighting be altered to make CAL pilots happier? Anyone? I will actually play "devil's advocate" for a moment and suggest that perhaps CAL could argue "furlough" is a category and class that deserves a negative value, and in so doing make the list more "fair". That way a furloughed pilot with 20 years might catch a break, but someone furloughed with 5 or 6 years wouldn't see any value.


P.S. In the UAL proposed list the maximum change in relative seniority is -5%. In the most recent Pinnacle SLI, some pilots moved up over 10% and some pilots moved down almost 40%. I don't think a -5% change in relative seniority will be seen as "unfair" especially in light of the fact that CAL pilots are now getting 4 times the WB-Cap jobs and 3 times as many bases to chose from and and a vast new array of long haul efficient flying and a new contract that brings them to the top of the work rule pyramid for the first time in their history.

SpecialTracking

Well, it appears some on the blue side are just as upset as those on the black side. Isn't that one of the criteria in determining a successful SLI?

thruthemurk

United pilots are furious with this proposal as it seems to be a shot at a final solution, rather than over weighting their (UA) interests.

No Continental pilot seemed unhappy with the proposal their side presented - which automatically disqualifies it as a reasonable solution.

Remember - a good merger has pilots on both sides ****ed off with their perceived (or real) losses.

There will be pain.

Sunvox

I will actually play "devil's advocate" for a moment and suggest that perhaps CAL could argue "furlough" is a category and class that deserves a negative value, and in so doing make the list more "fair". That way a furloughed pilot with 20 years might catch a break, but someone furloughed with 5 or 6 years wouldn't see any value.

Airhoss

Well,

I get boned either way. I just get bone less on this version of the ISL. On the CAL proposal I wind up at 98.1% seniority retiring at about 50%. On this proposal I wind up within 2% or so of my current 70%. L-CAL guys have been screaming for retaliative seniority and here it is. Now they want relative seniority from 4 years after the snap shot? That was JP's plan with his delaying tactics and it's wrong on every level. I guess what was really wanted was super secret special retaliative seniority?

I was supposed to retire in the top 100 at UAL. That's out the window but at least on this proposal I am not getting gang raped for the rest of my career.

SpecialTracking

Which would you have rather seen, the final solution or low balling Tony the used car salesman? Imho, I'd rather see the final solution based on methodology vs some far fetched list produced on an exoscetch.