Originally Posted by CleCapt

We should agree that we will all unconditionally accept the list when it is awarded. Move on, putting all the rhetoric and name calling behind us. If we can do that, then I think there is hope for this merged pilot group yet.

If not, I think we will all be looking for new jobs in a couple years.

Good luck to all of us.

Originally Posted by LAX Pilot

Yes. I'm tired of the drama. Plus I think having heard both sides, and all the data, that very close to relative seniority with minor adjustments for longevity and status and category differences are appropriate.

And to be clear, my prediction is the UAL proposed list. Not something "in-between" the two.

I believe that if the CAL team had seen the UAL proposal first, they wouldn't a have proposed such an extreme list. I think they thought UAL would do something extreme and so this was pre-emptive.

Oh the joys of having to present your case first....

Originally Posted by Really

[B]

This is the comment that REALLY worries me!! Who gets to determine whether the award "goes off the ranch?" That is a very US Air type thought process. Do I think the NIC award was fair? Not sure?! It's not my JOB or RIGHT to decide!! I agreed to a process!! The BIGGEST part about the US Air Agreement that I had an issue with was the pilots of US Air agreed to BINDING ARBITRATION and then when it didn't go their way, they grabbed their toys and went home!! I am BIG on HONOR and ETHICS and I sure wouldn't want to do business with any of those guys!! You can ream the CAL MEC all you want and say they are not honorable but, we as a group (not individuals) entered into an agreed process! I hope you are of the HONORABLE type! I will promise you 100% if it goes off the ranch according to ME, you will NOT see me a part of ANY legal or decertification effort!!! (I AGREE with the process before and after the award!!)

Originally Posted by ChrisJT6

Well if you agreed to the process...I assume you are speaking of the ALPA merger policy? Please accept my criticism of your reps lack of regard for the process when they disregard the usage of any portion of the current policy in favor of whatever suits them...how is that honor and ethics? I also don't think high level of honor and ethics when your team is passing off a huge portion of your list with inaccurate longevity data according to ALPA definitions all while doing a good job of hiding data until Fred retires and the Arbs demand and get it this week. Please save the honor and ethics lecturing for another day, this is not a good time for it.

That is great you won't file suit if it doesn't go your way...just curious what possible legal basis for not getting a list based not on the current legal drivers, ALPA merger policy.

Process = Current ALPA merger policy

Originally Posted by routemap

Yes, our lawyers recommended we just blow off ALPA merger policy. Seriously, how do you define ALPA merger policy???

Originally Posted by routemap

Yes, our lawyers recommended we just blow off ALPA merger policy. Seriously, how do you define ALPA merger policy???

What I am seeing on this thread is several LUAL will not accept anything but their proposal. Good luck with that one.

I am very confident with the equites CAL brings to this merger, and can't wait for this to be over. Regardless of the outcome.

Originally Posted by LAX Pilot

Well relative to the 2010 list (+ or - 5%), not whatever it looks like today, and I predict that the UAL furloughees are not stapled, but integrated according to the UAL proposal.

Actually, VERY CLOSE to the UAL proposal is my prediction.

Originally Posted by SEDPA

This outcome is nothing short of a redistribution of the equity brought to the merger by L-CAL, to the L-UAL furloughed pilots ... in essence, you want CAL pilots to make the UAL furloughed pilots whole again ... I doubt that the 3 fine gentlemen arbitrators will find that fair ... I do share your thoughts on integrating the furloughed pilots ... no staple, but surely not at a 50% longevity credit basis.

Originally Posted by LAX Pilot

Longevity, Status and Category, Career Expectations.

That's what it is. Its those 3 things. Its in writing. Lots of witnesses, including the person that wrote the policy, testified why those are in there.

UAL's side used those three things. CAL's side said "Captains with Captains" then went 1 for 1, integrating 737 Capts with 747 Capts, then a bunch of CAL FOs with UAL Captains, then all the UAL widebody FO's with CAL 737 FOs, then stapeled the rest stating it was "overstaffing"

Right......