UAL proposed list online
05-16-2013, 01:55 PM
#183
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
More widebodies...did you see they pay $235/hr in the new contract? And CAL just more than DOUBLED their fleet with this merger!
Better work rules
Higher retirement numbers
900+ furloughees would retire as 767 Captains or better....no Expectations??
42 bidding options (bes) to your 16
There all in there, skippy. welcome to the Big 3.
Sled
Last edited by jsled; 05-16-2013 at 02:09 PM.
05-16-2013, 01:59 PM
#184
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
So the combined fleet rationalization calls the parking of airplanes on both sides and utilizes cal orders for fleet renewal. Orders which continued three years from the merger date to the SLI. Orders that only benefited the cal side in terms of upgrades and growth while we were operating as the single entity UCH. I think I understand where you are coming from. Viva el argumento!
05-16-2013, 02:00 PM
#185
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: It keeps changing.
Posts: 207
To borrow the arguments from many CAL folks on here... "A furloughed pilot has ZERO career expectations"... and "A furloughed pilot is no different than any unemployed pilot on the street" (CAL pilots' words, not mine.) If these are considered true statements then the 147 are no different from the 1437... they're furloughed, period.
So if career expectations are equal for both sides... ie: "ZERO", then how are they placed in front of their "peers" with more longevity... especially if UAL is supposedly weighting longevity unfairly?
The argument that UAL is using longevity unfairly is just not valid.
05-16-2013, 02:07 PM
#186
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 168
To borrow the arguments from many CAL folks on here... "A furloughed pilot has ZERO career expectations"... and "A furloughed pilot is no different than any unemployed pilot on the street" (CAL pilots' words, not mine.) If these are considered true statements then the 147 are no different from the 1437... they're furloughed, period.
So if career expectations are equal for both sides... ie: "ZERO", then how are they placed in front of their "peers" with more longevity... especially if UAL is supposedly weighting longevity unfairly?
The argument that UAL is using longevity unfairly is just not valid.
So if career expectations are equal for both sides... ie: "ZERO", then how are they placed in front of their "peers" with more longevity... especially if UAL is supposedly weighting longevity unfairly?
The argument that UAL is using longevity unfairly is just not valid.
05-16-2013, 02:17 PM
#187
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
To borrow the arguments from many CAL folks on here... "A furloughed pilot has ZERO career expectations"... and "A furloughed pilot is no different than any unemployed pilot on the street" (CAL pilots' words, not mine.) If these are considered true statements then the 147 are no different from the 1437... they're furloughed, period.
So if career expectations are equal for both sides... ie: "ZERO", then how are they placed in front of their "peers" with more longevity... especially if UAL is supposedly weighting longevity unfairly?
The argument that UAL is using longevity unfairly is just not valid.
So if career expectations are equal for both sides... ie: "ZERO", then how are they placed in front of their "peers" with more longevity... especially if UAL is supposedly weighting longevity unfairly?
The argument that UAL is using longevity unfairly is just not valid.
05-16-2013, 02:19 PM
#188
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: It keeps changing.
Posts: 207
Um... what list are you looking at? There are more junior CAL pilots leapfrogging UAL pilots whom have more longevity at the bottom of the list... (see my posts earlier about CAL pilots with 1 year longevity ahead of UAL pilots with 3+ year longevity) than the other way around. The use of longevity seems fairly consistent throughout.
Once again, it's not a valid argument.
05-16-2013, 02:21 PM
#189
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: It keeps changing.
Posts: 207
Valid point with respect to MAD. However if you assume that a furlough has SOME career expectations, as LUAL has done by putting furloughs in front of active pilots, then the question is what are those expectations? On the LCAL side there is less requirement to build assumptions for them--they were all recalled within 6 months of MAD. Their employment and progression is easily determined. On the LUAL side greater assumptions for progression have to be built since their status is still mostly furloughed three years after MAD. Their progression non-merger was far more uncertain, with some projections to not have all recalled until 2019.
Last edited by aileronjam; 05-16-2013 at 02:23 PM. Reason: grammar
05-16-2013, 02:22 PM
#190
Peace Love Understanding
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
Since the ALPA merger policy is the golden rule according to UAL peeps on here, where does it state anything about furlough clauses? It's interesting to see that in order to try and get the arbitrators to buy off on putting furloughs ahead of active pilots, they have come up with a sales pitch! In my opinion, it weakens the case for that to happen. It's like saying,
'We know it's not customary or precedent, but we are willing to do this to let it happen'
'We know it's not customary or precedent, but we are willing to do this to let it happen'
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
