UAL proposed list online
05-18-2013, 09:37 AM
#291
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 281
That's comparing "Apples to Oranges"! Aspen did not interview through UAL, we did interview through CAL! Under your scenario, the Guam guys also shouldn't be at CAL since they flew for a subsidiary! I get it, you don't like the programs, or have prop hate! I'm not trying to make you like it, just explain where our Comm. is coming from!! If the Aspen deal would help your pilot group they should have used it!! It's not the CAL/CALEX pilots fault they used a program 20 yrs. prior to Merger and then try to explain it on a Forum.
05-18-2013, 09:49 AM
#292
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Did you actually read the proposal? You keep yours for 5 years, we keep ours for five years. Heck, we may not even see the 350's for before the 5 years is up. On the 78's, we both have them coming, and you get them in your bases? Unfair? Why? Were you really going to open a LAX 787 base or SFO 787 base without this merger? How about having access to literally dozens more widebody aircraft in all bases? Didn't think so.
You're outraged by that? Yet your side wants to staple a full third of the UAL list? Woah. Instead, with the UAL proposal you get instant access to a fleet of 777's that is twice as big as yours.
The outrage absolutely goes both ways...
Scott
You're outraged by that? Yet your side wants to staple a full third of the UAL list? Woah. Instead, with the UAL proposal you get instant access to a fleet of 777's that is twice as big as yours.
The outrage absolutely goes both ways...
Scott
Yes....Probably like yourself, I too have read more than the average. I personally like Katz question to Ruark regarding the "new bases" for the for the B787. Katz said so "IF" Mgt decided to open a B747 base in EWR, would L-CAL Pilot's have access to that plane?? The answer was NOT yes.
However under Ruark's promoted Fence, "IF" Mgt decided to open up an LAX base for the B787 (prior to the 2016 scheduled L-UA slotted B787 deliveries), the L-UA Pilot's would have access to those WB slots b/c he's "assuming" that the B777 slots would be affected. What prevent's L-CAL from saying/"assuming" that their WB slots out of EWR would be further affected by the B747 in the similar drawn up situation?? Again.....We are talking about TWO different planes that are presently on property during the Arbitration. ONE L-Carrier has the B747, the OTHER has the B787. Like it or not, they BOTH pay the same per hour, no??
Again, I standby what Katz said in regard to Ruark's (L-UA's) proposal. Dan coined Ruark's concept VERY simply....."What's mine is mine, what's your's is mine"??. It doesn't take much more than a savant to ask which side of the mouth Ruark is speaking from on this above mentioned issue.
Can't have it both ways Scott, that I agree on.
SC
Last edited by SoCalGuy; 05-18-2013 at 10:08 AM.
05-18-2013, 09:55 AM
#293
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: 737 Captain
Posts: 374
It's simple...
Your Longevity= years worked at the major airline formerly known as Continental Airlines!. You know, the one that merged with United?
BUT...if apples represent widebody aircraft then UAL=110ish and CAL=40ish...In which case LCAL's argument is that apples and oranges are all the same! And that LUAL's apples are old and rotten. But that's a different discussion altogether.
Last edited by uaav8r; 05-18-2013 at 10:18 AM.
05-18-2013, 11:53 AM
#294
On Reserve
Joined APC: May 2008
Posts: 18
05-18-2013, 01:17 PM
#295
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Capt. B737
Posts: 329
Oh but yes we were called all of that as soon as the Cal proposal saw the light of
day. I'm not trying to convince you or the arbitrators of any thing. The CAL list stands and if you want to pursue an adjustment via the arbitrator you are free to do so. Just informing of the history behind. Good luck to us all.
day. I'm not trying to convince you or the arbitrators of any thing. The CAL list stands and if you want to pursue an adjustment via the arbitrator you are free to do so. Just informing of the history behind. Good luck to us all.
05-18-2013, 01:36 PM
#296
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 419
05-18-2013, 02:22 PM
#297
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
No problem. The stakes, and therefore emotions, are high on both sides. Looking forward to this all being over and hopefully having a good airline for all of us. Good luck to you as well
05-18-2013, 03:38 PM
#298
Peace Love Understanding
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
So what will our brothers and sisters at American/American Eagle use for seniority/longevity/DOH (whatever you want to call this 'date') of their Eagle flow throughs when they integrate with US/HP next year. I'm guessing (just guessing) this 'date' will be the day they started flying for American Airlines. After all, USAirways is merging with American Airlines NOT American Eagle. The same is true here...United Airlines has merged with Continental Airlines NOT ExpressJet! I think the comparison of ExpressJet and Eagle flow throughs is very legitimate. So when did American Eagle flow throughs start flying for American Airlines? Both owned by AMR. Very similar circumstances.
If a guy was hired at CAL in 1996 why is he on the seniority list with the 2000 hires? Ill bet it is because HE WASN'T HIRED AT CAL!
I mean CAL didn't even recognize this to put them in their proper place, but they want now to sudden get credit for it?
Sorry but we are all smart enough to see what a joke this is as well as the arbitrators.
If anything this deception should be punished.
05-18-2013, 03:49 PM
#299
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
If the CAL pilots claim they should get credit for their longevity at an express carrier, then WHY DIDN'T THEY GET IT AT CAL?
If a guy was hired at CAL in 1996 why is he on the seniority list with the 2000 hires? Ill bet it is because HE WASN'T HIRED AT CAL!
I mean CAL didn't even recognize this to put them in their proper place, but they want now to sudden get credit for it?
Sorry but we are all smart enough to see what a joke this is as well as the arbitrators.
If anything this deception should be punished.
If a guy was hired at CAL in 1996 why is he on the seniority list with the 2000 hires? Ill bet it is because HE WASN'T HIRED AT CAL!
I mean CAL didn't even recognize this to put them in their proper place, but they want now to sudden get credit for it?
Sorry but we are all smart enough to see what a joke this is as well as the arbitrators.
If anything this deception should be punished.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
