UAL proposed list online
05-16-2013, 06:49 AM
#111
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 138
I think the major issue that most CAL pilots have how the UAL list was conceived is that the relative seniority that it shows post merger is not the same type of relative seniority that it shows pre-merger. The pre-merger seniority number is based on active, employed pilots. The post merger seniority number is based on adding over 1,200 pilots that did not hold a position as of 2010. That skews the data. So to say that a pilot's relative seniority hasn't changed is simply not accurate.
That's the perspective from this side.
That's the perspective from this side.
Bingo.
Has there ever been a SLI where furloughed pilots were put ahead of active pilots?
05-16-2013, 06:55 AM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Going back in time it has only historically happened when DOH and/or longevity were part of ALPA policy at the time. (Go figure.)
Besides, the CAL merger committee proposal places pilots who were furloughed at merger announcement/closing, including some with less than a year on the property, above UAL widebody FOs who had never been furloughed. So I guess we can agree that both sides are fine with placing furloughed pilots above active pilots????
Last edited by cadetdrivr; 05-16-2013 at 07:06 AM.
05-16-2013, 06:59 AM
#114
SLI best wishes!
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: B767 Capt
Posts: 399
Now the real question is what will the arbitrated list look like
05-16-2013, 07:00 AM
#115
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 737 Cap
Posts: 451
Scott
05-16-2013, 07:04 AM
#116
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Windfall was taken out, but doesn't mean you can have one. D. Katz, talked about that early in the hearings.
This is not relative seniority. The furloughed pilots are treated as active pilots.
The snapshot for this ISL proposal is in the year 2010. In past arbitration awards, several snapshots have been presented and several have been used. There is no one magical snapshot. Look for more on this.
Historically furloughs have not done well in awards. The vast majority of these involuntary furloughs have no recall letters and very minimal career expectations. Minimal enough to seek jobs at other airlines and give up your seniority at UAL.
This is not relative seniority. The furloughed pilots are treated as active pilots.
The snapshot for this ISL proposal is in the year 2010. In past arbitration awards, several snapshots have been presented and several have been used. There is no one magical snapshot. Look for more on this.
Historically furloughs have not done well in awards. The vast majority of these involuntary furloughs have no recall letters and very minimal career expectations. Minimal enough to seek jobs at other airlines and give up your seniority at UAL.
05-16-2013, 07:05 AM
#117
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
I think the major issue that most CAL pilots have how the UAL list was conceived is that the relative seniority that it shows post merger is not the same type of relative seniority that it shows pre-merger. The pre-merger seniority number is based on active, employed pilots. The post merger seniority number is based on adding over 1,200 pilots that did not hold a position as of 2010. That skews the data. So to say that a pilot's relative seniority hasn't changed is simply not accurate.
That's the perspective from this side.
That's the perspective from this side.
Here's some further thought on that topic though . . .Starting with me:
Using round numbers so I don't have to go look up the exact number, I was 4239/6150 or 69% on the "active" list. If you put all the UAL furloughed pilots at the bottom, it doesn't change my new relative seniority number at all. You'd have to change the mathematical calculation of my Category and Class and Longevity, and adding weight to one or the other would only boost my standing relative to CAL pilots with similar relative seniority as I have higher longevity and Category and Class. You'd have to add in a new factor to be weighted that gives CAL pilots an advantage and then you'd have to justify why you are using that new factor. The easiest way would be to simply add a multiplier to all CAL scores and call it the "career expectations" multiplier. So for instance a CAL pilot has a raw score of 20 and I have a raw score of 20, but because CAL's career expectations are deemed to have been better than mine he gets a 1.1 x his score to give him credit for that.
My main point is that, yes, the UAL list shows relative seniority with furloughed pilots included and not just active pilots, but using the mathematical model that the UAL MEC is using it doesn't change the relative ranking on the new list for any UAL pilot senior to the furloughed pilot. The corollary to that fact is if one were to place all the UAL furloughees on the bottom of the list there would be a very large clump of junior CAL pilots that are junior to every "active" UAL pilot. I stand by my belief that this is a fair and equitable list methodology that will very likely get used, but if I were a CAL pilot I would most definitely not be happy and would be fighting for some adjustments in the bottom 1500 or so pilot group, but that's just me, and I'm sure some of my UAL brethren are scratching their heads and say "DoubleUTeeEff mate , whose side are you on anyways"
05-16-2013, 07:08 AM
#118
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 403
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.
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.
This list is no where close to relative seniority.
For one example, a furloughed pilot has no "relative seniority", thus if this were relative, then UAL would be proposing to staple their own furloughs.
Guess it depends on how you define terms here, which this whole exercise is about.
According to this list, furloughed pilots with no access to current jobs get placed ahead of a few thousand active pilots? If that's UALs definition of reasonable, then I hope we put 30 year fences on this and call it a day.
Who decides which definition is correct? The arbitrator of course.
This is an exercise in futility. This UAL list is a cruel joke...nothing more, nothing less.
I expected this, so I'm not upset.
What I find humorous is that the UAL guys think their list is "reasonable".
05-16-2013, 07:13 AM
#119
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
Not true as I explained in an earlier post the furloughed pilots are given a value of 0 for Category and Class, but if a furloughed pilot has longevity of 12 years and a CAL pilot has longevity of 5 years and a low score for Category and Class since he is a NBFO then the total score favors the UAL pilot with 12 years longevity. You can change the outcome by simply creating a new category, Furloughed, and assign that Category a negative score until it overrides longevity to the amount you want.
05-16-2013, 07:15 AM
#120
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 430
This list is no where close to relative seniority.
For one example, a furloughed pilot has no "relative seniority", thus if this were relative, then UAL would be proposing to staple their own furloughs.
Guess it depends on how you define terms here, which this whole exercise is about.
According to this list, furloughed pilots with no access to current jobs get placed ahead of a few thousand active pilots? If that's UALs definition of reasonable, then I hope we put 30 year fences on this and call it a day.
Who decides which definition is correct? The arbitrator of course.
This is an exercise in futility. This UAL list is a cruel joke...nothing more, nothing less.
I expected this, so I'm not upset.
What I find humorous is that the UAL guys think their list is "reasonable".
For one example, a furloughed pilot has no "relative seniority", thus if this were relative, then UAL would be proposing to staple their own furloughs.
Guess it depends on how you define terms here, which this whole exercise is about.
According to this list, furloughed pilots with no access to current jobs get placed ahead of a few thousand active pilots? If that's UALs definition of reasonable, then I hope we put 30 year fences on this and call it a day.
Who decides which definition is correct? The arbitrator of course.
This is an exercise in futility. This UAL list is a cruel joke...nothing more, nothing less.
I expected this, so I'm not upset.
What I find humorous is that the UAL guys think their list is "reasonable".
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
