Olecal

Firstly, furlough longevity is being used to put pilots on the street ahead of active pilots. FTR, I don't support that on either proposal!

Secondly, you will have to show me where the scenario you say exists! I'm not the sharpest crayon in the box, and I can't seem to find it...

Olecal

Incorrecto! Is was based on inequality of pay and aircraft. Here is a quote from the award:

The overwhelming majority of Colgan pilots who, pre-merger, had career expectations limited to flying turboprop aircraft would, following the integration, achieve bidding power into aircraft and pay scales well beyond any that could have reasonably been contemplated prior to the merger.



And to further give you something to think about, look what methodology was used, OMG, they used DOH, so the award must be invalid. That's not in the merger policy:







For the reasons to be discussed below, the finding is that the list appended to this Award as Attachment “A” best serves the precepts of the ALPA Merger Policy as applied to the facts of this unique case. The ISL was created on the basis of a Status and Category10 grouping that is organized, within each group, according to date of hire. The basic list was divided into the following groups and ratios:

• 1) CRJ-900 Captain (M: 272/P: 100/C:0)
• 2) Q400 plus CRJ-200 Captains (M:88/P:581/C:149)
• 3) Saab Captains (M:132/P:0/C:149)
• 4) Jet First Officers (CRJ-900 and CRJ-200) (M:314/P:448/C:0)
• 5) Turboprop First Officers (M:194/P:0/C:158)
• 6) Constructive Notice Pilots (M:16/P:225/C/152)

Keep standing on the policy, and see if you don't end up like USAir! The policy is a guidline, other factors will be used for the uniqueness of the case.

Sunvox

I just got off the phone with a UAL buddy that is foaming at the mouth because he's slotted next to an '05 hire and he's a 98 hire. I think your point is fantastic. If you're hired in 21001 and the company doesn't hire for ten years the guy next to you will be a 21011 hire. No big deal. It's the way it works.

Sunvox

Ole,

Dude I give you respect for staying on point and not going personal, but you have brought up "other factors" on many different posts. So aside from "career expectations" what other factors would you like to see considered or do you think will be considered and how can those factors be quantitatively evaluated?

Your Flyin' Partner,

Joe

Sunvox

It really seems to me that your argument in this post is not correct. The silos were sorted by DOH which is the alternative language for Longevity.

Olecal

DOH could play a part in some parts of the list, as well as relative seniority, credit for a/c orders long before the merger, financial conditions of the companies, and possibly even speculation. The 787 was ordered in 2004 for eg.. There's plenty of factors that could come into play, and it's not that I want them to, but the uniqueness of this merger may very well bring other factors into play. I'm prepared for that, I know you are too, but are the others?

Olecal

If DOH is alt language for longevity, then status and category is alt language for relative seniority. Would you agree?

Olecal

The first quote in my post deals with the handling of putting furloughs over very jr colgan fo's and constructive notice pilots!

Daytripper

I understand that's how it works with this particular iteration. But an eight percent bloc looks a little too steep at any point on the list, not to mention making the break at the beginning or end of a class. Relax.....I'm just back of the envelope scratching before my food arrives. It will be what it becomes.

Sunvox

It looks like it's just you and me left tonight. I have to admit I find the whole process intriguing and love the challenge of trying to second guess the arbs . . . anyways.


No. If airline A has 100 747s and airline B has 100 A319s, and both airlines hired all 1000 pilots in the year 3492 and the two airlines are merging then using the UAL MEC algorithm will afford airline A way higher computer scores than airline B and that has nothing to do with relative seniority.


Looking back at your earlier post, are you envisioning fewer silos?

WB-pilots
NB-pilots
Furloughees

and that's it for the list?

If that's correct what part of CAL's argument makes you think it will persuade the arbs to diverge so heavily from past precedent? I'm not saying I hate the proposal just wondering what the logic is behind why you think that is possible? But then maybe I misunderstood the post.