UAL proposed list online
05-15-2013, 06:08 PM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 419
Some guys on here believe they have a crystal ball, and take weeks of testimonies, comments, and questions....and are absolutely sure the list is a slam dunk. Problem is, non of us are the arbitrators, with labor law experience, and historical precendent..And yes, ALL of ALPA policy will assist, but not determine, solely. . I for am not shocked by the UA list. What were they suppose to do, keep their furloughed pilots at the bottom? Not attempt to gain an advantage in every hiring window? To think this is the list we will see or the CAL list for that matter, truly reduces the federally directed arbitarors ( many ex judges) to puppets who can't see through the smoke screens, statistical analysis, that favors one side versus the other. These guys are not rookies...
05-15-2013, 06:11 PM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 419
Now one gives a flying **** what you say about UAL, but in a very juvenile way it must make you feel good. Please stay in your special BES!
05-15-2013, 06:23 PM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
Yeah I bought my Crystal Ball at Wal-Mart just for times like these 
Seriously, as I said before the final list will be the list UAL proposed or really, really similar. There are no gimmicks. It's stovepiped category and class using computer based methodology to sort the silos which is almost EXACTLY what was done in USAir, DAL/NWA, and most recently Colgan/Pinnacle/Mesaba. This is not Rocket Science and ISL from recent years have all used very, very similar methodology. If you are hangin' your hat on a belief that "career expectations" are gonna change the list I think you are in for a rude awakening. I may be wrong about the furloughed pilots and they may yet end up stapled, but I would bet a LOT of money that the remainder of the list is virtually unchanged. It's Category and Class sorted by longevity how much more basic can you get.
For that matter, what magical consideration do you feel is not properly included in this break down. Give me a real verifiable measurable consideration that you honestly think the arbitrators should or even could include in addition to those that are required.
Can one CAL pilot offer a single serious, thought out, measurable addition to the computer model UAL proposed? W2s? What?
Seriously, as I said before the final list will be the list UAL proposed or really, really similar. There are no gimmicks. It's stovepiped category and class using computer based methodology to sort the silos which is almost EXACTLY what was done in USAir, DAL/NWA, and most recently Colgan/Pinnacle/Mesaba. This is not Rocket Science and ISL from recent years have all used very, very similar methodology. If you are hangin' your hat on a belief that "career expectations" are gonna change the list I think you are in for a rude awakening. I may be wrong about the furloughed pilots and they may yet end up stapled, but I would bet a LOT of money that the remainder of the list is virtually unchanged. It's Category and Class sorted by longevity how much more basic can you get.
For that matter, what magical consideration do you feel is not properly included in this break down. Give me a real verifiable measurable consideration that you honestly think the arbitrators should or even could include in addition to those that are required.
Can one CAL pilot offer a single serious, thought out, measurable addition to the computer model UAL proposed? W2s? What?
You have been screaming for the last 3 weeks that both USAIR and Delta mergers were before the NEW merger policy. Now that you see what your team has presented, you say your list s EXACTLY what happened before the new policy. You can't have it both ways. Either the policy changed or it didn't. If it changed (you said it has) then I doubt that your list will hold up.
These are all your words, not mine.
05-15-2013, 06:36 PM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 621
I think everyone needs to cool down and take a breath. L-cal and L-ual are both extinct. All of us are now pilots for United Airlines. None of us ( even Sunvox) can predict with any certainty how this thing will shake out. The only thing that is certain is that come Aug/sept, we will all be on one list.
05-15-2013, 06:38 PM
#65
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 39
You lose 4% relative seniority and the list is a joke.
But, but, but Mr Arbitrator I'm a Captain. Did you hear me!! I'm a Captain.
Dude, you had 5 years longevity at CN date and you're "stovepiped" seniority makes you a NBFO. The fact that you like to be a junior Captain is irrelevant to the arbitrators.
But, but, but Mr Arbitrator I'm a Captain. Did you hear me!! I'm a Captain.
Dude, you had 5 years longevity at CN date and you're "stovepiped" seniority makes you a NBFO. The fact that you like to be a junior Captain is irrelevant to the arbitrators.
), you don't see the error in this chart? Let me help you. The pilot listed in this chart as SENold 3306 with PCT_L seniority of 69.1% is a snapshot from some time in 2010. Today, that pilot is actually staffed at 59% seniority. With this proposal, that pilot goes all the way down to 73% seniority...not a loss of 4%, but a real loss of 14%! Like I said before, this is all smoke and mirrors. You cannot say a pilot can lose 4% from where you were almost four years ago even though you've gained 10% since that time and call that a fair integration.
05-15-2013, 06:48 PM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: EWR B737FO
Posts: 225
Yeah I bought my Crystal Ball at Wal-Mart just for times like these
Seriously, as I said before the final list will be the list UAL proposed or really, really similar. There are no gimmicks. It's stovepiped category and class using computer based methodology to sort the silos which is almost EXACTLY what was done in USAir, DAL/NWA, and most recently Colgan/Pinnacle/Mesaba. This is not Rocket Science and ISL from recent years have all used very, very similar methodology. If you are hangin' your hat on a belief that "career expectations" are gonna change the list I think you are in for a rude awakening. I may be wrong about the furloughed pilots and they may yet end up stapled, but I would bet a LOT of money that the remainder of the list is virtually unchanged. It's Category and Class sorted by longevity how much more basic can you get.
For that matter, what magical consideration do you feel is not properly included in this break down. Give me a real verifiable measurable consideration that you honestly think the arbitrators should or even could include in addition to those that are required.
Can one CAL pilot offer a single serious, thought out, measurable addition to the computer model UAL proposed? W2s? What?
Seriously, as I said before the final list will be the list UAL proposed or really, really similar. There are no gimmicks. It's stovepiped category and class using computer based methodology to sort the silos which is almost EXACTLY what was done in USAir, DAL/NWA, and most recently Colgan/Pinnacle/Mesaba. This is not Rocket Science and ISL from recent years have all used very, very similar methodology. If you are hangin' your hat on a belief that "career expectations" are gonna change the list I think you are in for a rude awakening. I may be wrong about the furloughed pilots and they may yet end up stapled, but I would bet a LOT of money that the remainder of the list is virtually unchanged. It's Category and Class sorted by longevity how much more basic can you get.
For that matter, what magical consideration do you feel is not properly included in this break down. Give me a real verifiable measurable consideration that you honestly think the arbitrators should or even could include in addition to those that are required.
Can one CAL pilot offer a single serious, thought out, measurable addition to the computer model UAL proposed? W2s? What?
05-15-2013, 06:55 PM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
For all of your insightful posts (albeit wrong ), you don't see the error in this chart? Let me help you. The pilot listed in this chart as SENold 3306 with PCT_L seniority of 69.1% is a snapshot from some time in 2010. Today, that pilot is actually staffed at 59% seniority. With this proposal, that pilot goes all the way down to 73% seniority...not a loss of 4%, but a real loss of 14%! Like I said before, this is all smoke and mirrors. You cannot say a pilot can lose 4% from where you were almost four years ago even though you've gained 10% since that time and call that a fair integration.
), you don't see the error in this chart? Let me help you. The pilot listed in this chart as SENold 3306 with PCT_L seniority of 69.1% is a snapshot from some time in 2010. Today, that pilot is actually staffed at 59% seniority. With this proposal, that pilot goes all the way down to 73% seniority...not a loss of 4%, but a real loss of 14%! Like I said before, this is all smoke and mirrors. You cannot say a pilot can lose 4% from where you were almost four years ago even though you've gained 10% since that time and call that a fair integration.Sled
Last edited by jsled; 05-15-2013 at 07:32 PM.
05-15-2013, 06:57 PM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 419
For all of your insightful posts (albeit wrong ), you don't see the error in this chart? Let me help you. The pilot listed in this chart as SENold 3306 with PCT_L seniority of 69.1% is a snapshot from some time in 2010. Today, that pilot is actually staffed at 59% seniority. With this proposal, that pilot goes all the way down to 73% seniority...not a loss of 4%, but a real loss of 14%! Like I said before, this is all smoke and mirrors. You cannot say a pilot can lose 4% from where you were almost four years ago even though you've gained 10% since that time and call that a fair integration.
), you don't see the error in this chart? Let me help you. The pilot listed in this chart as SENold 3306 with PCT_L seniority of 69.1% is a snapshot from some time in 2010. Today, that pilot is actually staffed at 59% seniority. With this proposal, that pilot goes all the way down to 73% seniority...not a loss of 4%, but a real loss of 14%! Like I said before, this is all smoke and mirrors. You cannot say a pilot can lose 4% from where you were almost four years ago even though you've gained 10% since that time and call that a fair integration.
05-15-2013, 07:19 PM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 137
For all of your insightful posts (albeit wrong ), you don't see the error in this chart? Let me help you. The pilot listed in this chart as SENold 3306 with PCT_L seniority of 69.1% is a snapshot from some time in 2010. Today, that pilot is actually staffed at 59% seniority. With this proposal, that pilot goes all the way down to 73% seniority...not a loss of 4%, but a real loss of 14%! Like I said before, this is all smoke and mirrors. You cannot say a pilot can lose 4% from where you were almost four years ago even though you've gained 10% since that time and call that a fair integration.
), you don't see the error in this chart? Let me help you. The pilot listed in this chart as SENold 3306 with PCT_L seniority of 69.1% is a snapshot from some time in 2010. Today, that pilot is actually staffed at 59% seniority. With this proposal, that pilot goes all the way down to 73% seniority...not a loss of 4%, but a real loss of 14%! Like I said before, this is all smoke and mirrors. You cannot say a pilot can lose 4% from where you were almost four years ago even though you've gained 10% since that time and call that a fair integration.I feel like I'm at a used car dealership with all the fuzzy math rationalizing on the ual side. Katz is exposing these hacks, warts and all.
Not getting ruffled about it as it won't be the final list, nothing close for that matter. Let the blowhards on this site have their little circle jerk of mutual admiration, it will help them to have an emotional support group when the final result comes out, before they hire more attorneys to sue..
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
