UAL proposed list online
05-18-2013, 05:19 PM
#301
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 39
What's all the drama about the CalEx guys? They have a normal date of hire for staffing, and an earlier date of hire for travel purposes. Since there will be no reordering of the CAL list, they are essentially trapped between the off the street hire immediately above and below them. They're probably all from the same new hire class and share the same doh anyway. In that case, whatever definition of longevity you use cannot and will not impact the CalEx pilot one way or the other, except to the extent that it also applies to the pilots immediately above and below him. Is there anything more to it than that?
05-18-2013, 06:19 PM
#302
On Reserve
Joined APC: May 2008
Posts: 18
05-19-2013, 10:50 AM
#304
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 166
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
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
SoCal,
you're ignoring two important points:
1. only L-UAL had 747's on the snapshot date
2. Neither airline had 787's on the snapshot date yet BOTH airlines had them on order
It's perfectly reasonable that the fences for the two airplanes would be treated differently. Since both airlines had 787's coming, how do you decide who gets to fly them? That's where the domiciles come in. All the 787 flying from IAH and EWR will be protected from L-UAL guys and vice versa for SFO, LAX, ORD, etc.
That's why a 747 being moved to EWR is not the same as a 787 being moved to LAX.
Since I'm assuming you live in SoCal, I hope I get to fly with you on the 777 out of LA some day.
05-19-2013, 02:45 PM
#305
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
SoCal,
you're ignoring two important points:
1. only L-UAL had 747's on the snapshot date
2. Neither airline had 787's on the snapshot date yet BOTH airlines had them on order
It's perfectly reasonable that the fences for the two airplanes would be treated differently. Since both airlines had 787's coming, how do you decide who gets to fly them? That's where the domiciles come in. All the 787 flying from IAH and EWR will be protected from L-UAL guys and vice versa for SFO, LAX, ORD, etc.
That's why a 747 being moved to EWR is not the same as a 787 being moved to LAX.
Since I'm assuming you live in SoCal, I hope I get to fly with you on the 777 out of LA some day.
you're ignoring two important points:
1. only L-UAL had 747's on the snapshot date
2. Neither airline had 787's on the snapshot date yet BOTH airlines had them on order
It's perfectly reasonable that the fences for the two airplanes would be treated differently. Since both airlines had 787's coming, how do you decide who gets to fly them? That's where the domiciles come in. All the 787 flying from IAH and EWR will be protected from L-UAL guys and vice versa for SFO, LAX, ORD, etc.
That's why a 747 being moved to EWR is not the same as a 787 being moved to LAX.
Since I'm assuming you live in SoCal, I hope I get to fly with you on the 777 out of LA some day.
Interesting take on the "snapshot". It's clear that both groups have differing opinions as to the 'date'. In view of that, I've yet to read/hear any of the Arbitrator's define a "hardline" as to what they consider the "snapshot date". By not receiving any definitive/acceptable direction from the Tri-Panel, "assuming" 2010 (and nothing else) could be very premature in the factors that you outline above.
In reading L-UA's final day, Katz X/am on F/O Ruark made some very compelling/contrasting points as far as 2010 v 2013 on several levels. All we know up to this point, the Tri-Panel has not given any definitive direction, thus they're obviously "hearing" BOTH sides while weighing their respective testimonies. To "assume" that 2010 is where the Arbitrators draw the line can make for a disappointing absolute when the findings are rendered.
As far as the BOLD above statement, you will be hard-pressed to find one L-CAL guy agreeing with you that slant.....Staying constant with the mantra, "What's mine is mine, what's your's is mine".
Just another reason that we have 3-Arbitrators hearing this "circus".Until we find out the results later this summer, safe travels.
Cheers brother!!
05-19-2013, 03:22 PM
#306
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
Yes. Because you have to start with understanding why K was brought to the stand. His testimony served, but one purpose and that was to show that the CAL list was inaccurate with regards to longevity. In the end I would not have chosen to argue this point as every CAL pilot is bracketed by "street hires" whom they can not jump.
On a totally separate issue I had an epiphany today in support of CAL.
Given 2 airlines that are merging, one with all 777 and one with all 737, the airline with 777 will have 1/3 Caps and 2/3 FOs. The company with all 737 will have 1/2 Caps and 1/2 FOs. If they merge the 737 company with only 737s will lose Cap 737 time. Which is better 777 FO or 737 CAP? Given recent trends 737 CAP was better, but ALPA Merger policy is rear looking.
The counter argument is that the 737 CAP positions do not exist in a vacuum, but rather are a product of the mega-carrier success and as such belong to the career expectations of both groups.
On a totally separate issue I had an epiphany today in support of CAL.
Given 2 airlines that are merging, one with all 777 and one with all 737, the airline with 777 will have 1/3 Caps and 2/3 FOs. The company with all 737 will have 1/2 Caps and 1/2 FOs. If they merge the 737 company with only 737s will lose Cap 737 time. Which is better 777 FO or 737 CAP? Given recent trends 737 CAP was better, but ALPA Merger policy is rear looking.
The counter argument is that the 737 CAP positions do not exist in a vacuum, but rather are a product of the mega-carrier success and as such belong to the career expectations of both groups.
05-19-2013, 03:49 PM
#307
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: B777 CA - SFO
Posts: 730
This is the "heart" of the issue clearly. It is the CAL sense of entitlement to these planes and seats. Newsflash: Those fleets and seats exist in a world of mega-carriers. They are NOT "yours". The case was made very dramatically that UAL could have and logically should have placed a large order for NB aircraft and Tilton is on record saying he wasn't going to screw up whatever future merger was coming by unilaterally ordering aircraft because it would be Airbus if it was USAirways and it would be Boeing if it was CAL. The DAL/NWA merger forever changed the industry. That's why Kellner quit; that's why Smisek took over and reengaged UAL in merger talks and thats why every single plane, seat, fleet, and base is part of "OUR" career expectations. Not YOURs not MINE, OURS - CAL and UAL and now just one big UAL. You for sure do not agree, but it will be up to the arbs to decide and me thinks your protestations of "It's mine! It's mine!" smack a tad too much of desperation and selfishness to be credible in the eyes of independent non-airline minds.
Testimony of Mo Garfinkle. 11 May, 2013
Testimony of Mo Garfinkle. 11 May, 2013
05-19-2013, 04:07 PM
#308
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
Hey in all this jibberish about who's is who's A thought came to me...
I'm a Whale pilot (that's 747-400 to you Guppy pilots) and a thought jumped into my head, if the sCAL pilot get to fly the Whale I would bet they would ant to un-band the pay-scale and increase the pay of our fleet.
It sure seems strange to me that a B767-400 has the same pay as the 747-400. Of course they both have -400 in the title so that's what it must be.
Carry on the ranting!
I'm a Whale pilot (that's 747-400 to you Guppy pilots) and a thought jumped into my head, if the sCAL pilot get to fly the Whale I would bet they would ant to un-band the pay-scale and increase the pay of our fleet.
It sure seems strange to me that a B767-400 has the same pay as the 747-400. Of course they both have -400 in the title so that's what it must be.
Carry on the ranting!
05-19-2013, 04:29 PM
#310
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 137
Hey in all this jibberish about who's is who's A thought came to me...
I'm a Whale pilot (that's 747-400 to you Guppy pilots) and a thought jumped into my head, if the sCAL pilot get to fly the Whale I would bet they would ant to un-band the pay-scale and increase the pay of our fleet.
It sure seems strange to me that a B767-400 has the same pay as the 747-400. Of course they both have -400 in the title so that's what it must be.
Carry on the ranting!
I'm a Whale pilot (that's 747-400 to you Guppy pilots) and a thought jumped into my head, if the sCAL pilot get to fly the Whale I would bet they would ant to un-band the pay-scale and increase the pay of our fleet.
It sure seems strange to me that a B767-400 has the same pay as the 747-400. Of course they both have -400 in the title so that's what it must be.
Carry on the ranting!
Did you burn ants with a magnifying glass as a kid...jezuz man grow the fup...guppy pilots...whale pilots ...who gives a shart...you're a friggin tool...you probably have jepp charts lining the walls of one room in your house, with a couple static displays flying through your den along with some inane plaques of yourself and your amazing aviation prowess...give me a friggin break
...and you wonder why some of you guys get a bad rap...
...and if you don't wonder...that's part of the problem...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
