UAL proposed list online
05-16-2013, 09:12 PM
#221
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 168
Firstly, "furlough longevity" is not being used as you say... "active longevity" is being used to put pilots "on the street" ahead of active pilots. The furloughed pilots are given longevity based on "active" time, and they're not receiving any credit for time on furlough.
Secondly, it's very simple... scroll to the part of the list where you see a CAL pilot with a number one (1) in the column titled "LON"... shift your eyes slightly lower and you will see a UAL pilot with a number greater than one (1). In other words... a furloughed CAL pilot with less longevity was put ahead of a furloughed UAL pilot with more longevity.
Yet again... the argument that UAL is unfairly weighting longevity is BS.
Secondly, it's very simple... scroll to the part of the list where you see a CAL pilot with a number one (1) in the column titled "LON"... shift your eyes slightly lower and you will see a UAL pilot with a number greater than one (1). In other words... a furloughed CAL pilot with less longevity was put ahead of a furloughed UAL pilot with more longevity.
Yet again... the argument that UAL is unfairly weighting longevity is BS.
05-16-2013, 09:17 PM
#222
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
That is why Katz is always on the losing side. He keeps picking little details, on the fringe of the bell curve, and uses those as examples as why things should be as the l_CAL proposed SLI.
His contradictions are almost comical. Complaining about UAL ex furloughees being put ahead of active l-CAL pilots, when they had just proposed putting furloughed l-CAL pilots ahead of active UAL pilots that had never been furloughed and hired 97-ish. This included two pilots hired at l-CAL in 2011, against the T&P agreement. Who are those guys anyway, "friends of Fred". If their hiring was against the T&P, should they even be on the property going forward?
His contradictions are almost comical. Complaining about UAL ex furloughees being put ahead of active l-CAL pilots, when they had just proposed putting furloughed l-CAL pilots ahead of active UAL pilots that had never been furloughed and hired 97-ish. This included two pilots hired at l-CAL in 2011, against the T&P agreement. Who are those guys anyway, "friends of Fred". If their hiring was against the T&P, should they even be on the property going forward?
05-16-2013, 09:30 PM
#223
Peace Love Understanding
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
05-16-2013, 09:45 PM
#224
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
So I have a question for all the l-CAL guys, including the very moderate ones like OleCal. At first I didn't believe that the CAL side should get penalized for their leadership submitting falsified longevity data on their "certified" seniority list.
In the ensuing day or so, not one of the CAL pilots has denounced that act. By not denouncing it, you agree with it?
UAL also had flow through agreements with express during furlough. Some of our pilots took it. I don't know how many. Most of them thought they could do better, and did. Not one single day of UAX express flying was submitted as UAL longevity time. Our dates of hire, dates of furlough, and dates of recall were submitted to the day on UAL's "certified" seniority list.
Maybe I was mistaken in my opinion. Since you all seem to agree with your leadership falsifying the data, I hope the arbitrators punish the l-CAL side severely.
In the ensuing day or so, not one of the CAL pilots has denounced that act. By not denouncing it, you agree with it?
UAL also had flow through agreements with express during furlough. Some of our pilots took it. I don't know how many. Most of them thought they could do better, and did. Not one single day of UAX express flying was submitted as UAL longevity time. Our dates of hire, dates of furlough, and dates of recall were submitted to the day on UAL's "certified" seniority list.
Maybe I was mistaken in my opinion. Since you all seem to agree with your leadership falsifying the data, I hope the arbitrators punish the l-CAL side severely.
05-17-2013, 04:16 AM
#225
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Posts: 230
So I have a question for all the l-CAL guys, including the very moderate ones like OleCal. At first I didn't believe that the CAL side should get penalized for their leadership submitting falsified longevity data on their "certified" seniority list.
In the ensuing day or so, not one of the CAL pilots has denounced that act. By not denouncing it, you agree with it?
UAL also had flow through agreements with express during furlough. Some of our pilots took it. I don't know how many. Most of them thought they could do better, and did. Not one single day of UAX express flying was submitted as UAL longevity time. Our dates of hire, dates of furlough, and dates of recall were submitted to the day on UAL's "certified" seniority list.
Maybe I was mistaken in my opinion. Since you all seem to agree with your leadership falsifying the data, I hope the arbitrators punish the l-CAL side severely.
In the ensuing day or so, not one of the CAL pilots has denounced that act. By not denouncing it, you agree with it?
UAL also had flow through agreements with express during furlough. Some of our pilots took it. I don't know how many. Most of them thought they could do better, and did. Not one single day of UAX express flying was submitted as UAL longevity time. Our dates of hire, dates of furlough, and dates of recall were submitted to the day on UAL's "certified" seniority list.
Maybe I was mistaken in my opinion. Since you all seem to agree with your leadership falsifying the data, I hope the arbitrators punish the l-CAL side severely.
probe... I'm beging to believe there is more of a cult mentality on the UAL side than a Union mentality...
05-17-2013, 04:23 AM
#226
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
Defending dishonesty. Just what I thought. And since no CAL guys are slamming their own guys for this, that means at least the ones stupid enough to be participating on this forum (like me), they agree with it.
You are lucky I am not one of the arbitrators. I would staple the lot of you. Doing anything else at this point simply rewards bad behavior.
You can put your earbuds and backpacks back on and wonder how you ended up flying RJ's again.
You are lucky I am not one of the arbitrators. I would staple the lot of you. Doing anything else at this point simply rewards bad behavior.
You can put your earbuds and backpacks back on and wonder how you ended up flying RJ's again.
05-17-2013, 04:26 AM
#227
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B777 FO/IRO
Posts: 264
These guys are in the training department at CAL. Most are on the 777 fleet. They have a lawsuit going to try and stay hired on, but since the new contract states that you must be an active pilot able to fly the line, they will most likely be removed from the list and let go. My thoughts are this, you've had plenty of time to plan for your retirement, (+ the extra 5 years of the age 65 rule), don't let that door hit you in the backside on the way out!
05-17-2013, 04:44 AM
#228
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
These guys are a perfect snapshot of what the CAL pilot seniority list consists of. Nobody knows why they are here. Nobody can explain how long they have been here. DOH? What is that. Well, I thought about flying for CAL while playing Microsoft Flight simulator back in 86 so that is my DOH at CAL.
Staple the lot of them. At least the 05 and up hires interviewed for and were hired by a "major" airline, so they have that going for them. Prior to that, "where did these guys come from, anyway".
I won't even go into scabs as we have those on UAL's side as well. But other than the scabs, the rest of the pilot group at UAL applied for, interviewed for, and were hired by a major airline, and most of them were hired when UAL was the world's largest airline.
If I were an arbitrator I would staple the lot of you. If for no other reason than to set a precedent that falsifying employment data on a "certified" seniority list should be punished severely.
I have finally changed my attitude towards all this. I used to want it to be done fairly and equitably. But now I know who I am dealing with. A bunch of pilots who were unable to get hired by an real airline for many reasons. Dodgy backgrounds. Fake "Parker" flight hours. Whatever. This continues years later into a SLI process where they are patently falsifying their employment data to gain an illegal advantage against "real" pilots. Real pilots being defined by pilots who got to where they are because of experience and verifiable credentials.
Staple the lot of them. At least the 05 and up hires interviewed for and were hired by a "major" airline, so they have that going for them. Prior to that, "where did these guys come from, anyway".
I won't even go into scabs as we have those on UAL's side as well. But other than the scabs, the rest of the pilot group at UAL applied for, interviewed for, and were hired by a major airline, and most of them were hired when UAL was the world's largest airline.
If I were an arbitrator I would staple the lot of you. If for no other reason than to set a precedent that falsifying employment data on a "certified" seniority list should be punished severely.
I have finally changed my attitude towards all this. I used to want it to be done fairly and equitably. But now I know who I am dealing with. A bunch of pilots who were unable to get hired by an real airline for many reasons. Dodgy backgrounds. Fake "Parker" flight hours. Whatever. This continues years later into a SLI process where they are patently falsifying their employment data to gain an illegal advantage against "real" pilots. Real pilots being defined by pilots who got to where they are because of experience and verifiable credentials.
05-17-2013, 05:09 AM
#229
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Posts: 230
These guys are a perfect snapshot of what the CAL pilot seniority list consists of. Nobody knows why they are here. Nobody can explain how long they have been here. DOH? What is that. Well, I thought about flying for CAL while playing Microsoft Flight simulator back in 86 so that is my DOH at CAL.
Staple the lot of them. At least the 05 and up hires interviewed for and were hired by a "major" airline, so they have that going for them. Prior to that, "where did these guys come from, anyway".
I won't even go into scabs as we have those on UAL's side as well. But other than the scabs, the rest of the pilot group at UAL applied for, interviewed for, and were hired by a major airline, and most of them were hired when UAL was the world's largest airline.
If I were an arbitrator I would staple the lot of you. If for no other reason than to set a precedent that falsifying employment data on a "certified" seniority list should be punished severely.
I have finally changed my attitude towards all this. I used to want it to be done fairly and equitably. But now I know who I am dealing with. A bunch of pilots who were unable to get hired by an real airline for many reasons. Dodgy backgrounds. Fake "Parker" flight hours. Whatever. This continues years later into a SLI process where they are patently falsifying their employment data to gain an illegal advantage against "real" pilots. Real pilots being defined by pilots who got to where they are because of experience and verifiable credentials.
Staple the lot of them. At least the 05 and up hires interviewed for and were hired by a "major" airline, so they have that going for them. Prior to that, "where did these guys come from, anyway".
I won't even go into scabs as we have those on UAL's side as well. But other than the scabs, the rest of the pilot group at UAL applied for, interviewed for, and were hired by a major airline, and most of them were hired when UAL was the world's largest airline.
If I were an arbitrator I would staple the lot of you. If for no other reason than to set a precedent that falsifying employment data on a "certified" seniority list should be punished severely.
I have finally changed my attitude towards all this. I used to want it to be done fairly and equitably. But now I know who I am dealing with. A bunch of pilots who were unable to get hired by an real airline for many reasons. Dodgy backgrounds. Fake "Parker" flight hours. Whatever. This continues years later into a SLI process where they are patently falsifying their employment data to gain an illegal advantage against "real" pilots. Real pilots being defined by pilots who got to where they are because of experience and verifiable credentials.
05-17-2013, 05:21 AM
#230
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
I have a great deal of experience in aviation, including interviewing pilots. Pilots who are not open about their background, experience, and previous employers are hiding something. 100% of the time.
Max, if you are an honest guy, I recommend you and your CAL buddies offer up to your Merger Committee your CAL class start dates, flow up dates, flow down dates, etc.
If not, you are a fraud. Period. End of sentence.
Max, if you are an honest guy, I recommend you and your CAL buddies offer up to your Merger Committee your CAL class start dates, flow up dates, flow down dates, etc.
If not, you are a fraud. Period. End of sentence.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
