Guess the date of the ISL Decision.
06-27-2013, 06:31 PM
#181
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,726
Taken in context of SLI it is beyond ridiculous as Larry from IAH doesn't have the slightest microscopic amount of influence over the outcome.
06-27-2013, 07:04 PM
#182
Peace Love Understanding
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
LAX, when the UAL list placed the +/- relative seniority % after a pilot, they're including all of the furloughs, so to find the difference in terms of actual pilot slots, you are diluting the pool. Everyone's relative seniority gives the impression of increasing over their current seniority without doing a thing in terms of aiding their career. For example, someone in the middle of the CAL list loses about 5% relative seniority according to UAL, but actually winds up losing a multiple of that in terms of actual positions.
Also, he's made the same seniority as a 1998 hire at UAL, even though he is a 2005 hire, so he is GAINING 7 years in some ways.
06-27-2013, 08:14 PM
#183
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 152
But my point was that for Ben, all those pilots are junior to him, and even with them counted in, he only changes 3%. That's also without removing the pilots that have retired, and adding the new hires, since its the 2010 list.
Also, he's made the same seniority as a 1998 hire at UAL, even though he is a 2005 hire, so he is GAINING 7 years in some ways.
Also, he's made the same seniority as a 1998 hire at UAL, even though he is a 2005 hire, so he is GAINING 7 years in some ways.
A furloughed pilot is not at 100 Percent on the list, they are 100 plus.
Gaining 7 years? No.
06-27-2013, 08:35 PM
#184
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,726
Agreed. This is part of the arrogance that I discussed earlier. For some reason they think their age or DOH is of any significance. They will have to get over it and get over it quick. If you are a 98 hire at 90%, and you are next to a 07 hire at 90%, you've gained or lost nothing. Go have a beer and get on with your life.
Goodnight.
Goodnight.
let it be so!
06-27-2013, 09:12 PM
#185
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Agreed. This is part of the arrogance that I discussed earlier. For some reason they think their age or DOH is of any significance. They will have to get over it and get over it quick. If you are a 98 hire at 90%, and you are next to a 07 hire at 90%, you've gained or lost nothing. Go have a beer and get on with your life.
Goodnight.
Goodnight.
06-28-2013, 08:17 AM
#187
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Position: Somewhere in a hollowed out hole...yet with broadband
Posts: 115
Funny how some...(mainly a handful of tools on this forum) cant seem to grasp this part of the "new merger policy"
"In no particular order and with no particular weight, now
include but are not limited to"
"In no particular order and with no particular weight, now
include but are not limited to"
06-28-2013, 08:19 AM
#188
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 521
Agreed. This is part of the arrogance that I discussed earlier. For some reason they think their age or DOH is of any significance. They will have to get over it and get over it quick. If you are a 98 hire at 90%, and you are next to a 07 hire at 90%, you've gained or lost nothing. Go have a beer and get on with your life.
Goodnight.
Goodnight.
My retirement number changes by about 1300 numbers.
Look.....Brucia decided that furloughees matter. HE CHANGED ALPA MERGER POLICY to give them value.
Now he wants to act like they don't matter.
Sorry....you don't staple furloughees. Look at the latest SLI under the new policy.
Even CAL agrees by putting furloughees ahead of active UAL guys with 13 years longevity (and never furloughed).
06-28-2013, 08:21 AM
#189
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 521
It could go 100% longevity according to this little sentence too...
06-28-2013, 08:22 AM
#190
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Exactly. And DOH and age are just as relevant to that argument as relative seniority
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
