Originally Posted by Sunvox

Absolutely 100% completely and utterly wrong!

Take a look at the JFK UAL 756 May bids and the DCA 756 bids. The middle 2/3 group is forced to fly 88.5 hours and many many if not most of the top fly 70 hours or close to that number. Why? Because like me they prefer 18 days off and 1 leg a day working. The 747 is premium only partially because of pay, a far greater number of very very senior FOs sit on that plane because it's trips provide 21 days a month off and that's before counting sick leave and vacation. I understand a lot of guys at CAL are focused on payrates and W2s, but that is NOT representative of the UAL workforce nor do I think for much of the CAL workforce. If the 74 was in JFK I would sit left seat on that 'til I die or it was taken away if I could make $150 Grand a year working 9 days flying to Tokyo.

Originally Posted by Zoomie

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".

Originally Posted by APC225

I'll go with that metric too. It's measurable. What is odd to me is the notion that pilots are drawn to widebodies like moths to a flame. Pilots bid widebodies if the QOL or pay is better, motivations similar to any other profession.

Originally Posted by vspeed

Originally Posted by LAX Pilot

Yes! The last merger done under the new policy.

Also the CAL proposed list had pilots at CAL who were on furlough at the time of the merger put ahead of UAL pilots with 12 years of consecutive, never furloughed longevity.

And I didn't see ONE CAL PILOT come on here and say that it was wrong for CAL to propose putting their furloughees ahead of pilots who were active at United.

So there WILL be furloughed UAL pilots ahead of active CAL pilots because the policy states longevity must be considered AND nowhere in policy does it restrict placing furloughees with active pilots.

Also, the last award under this policy did exactly that.

The merger happened in 2010. Just because one side got to reap a benefit greater than another side doesn't mean anything. Just be lucky you got to grab a position out of seniority, because the music is going to stop soon.

Originally Posted by vspeed

Originally Posted by jsled

Karma indeed.

Pay Banding!
Retro!
uhhh...my DOH is 1990 because I was hired at Express...err I mean Continental Airlines...
uhhh....I was not furloughed because I was flying a Brasilia at Express...err I mean Continental Airlines....


Can't wait to sit my arse in a 73 left seat Good thing that contract passed. Bring on the list, baby!!Sled

Originally Posted by routemap

That's fine use the new merger policy as is and should be, but don't leave out career expectations and status and category. Your list puts a lot of weight on longevity.

LCAL reaped a benefit that was in motion well prior to the merger. When I was hired at CAL my career expectation was to be at 50 percent at the 10 year mark. To date not terribly far from that. Just like I can't throw your longevity out the window you can't throw my career progression out the window. It must be a consideration.

Sorry but it's just not all longevity here.

Originally Posted by CALFO

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.