XHooker

A career is more like a basketball game where the totality of the career (score at the end) is more important than who made the last shot (what you hold when you retire). Over an entire career for a new hire, more widebodies are better. However, more widebodies means longer to upgrade to captain once you reach WB FO. Once you hit NB captain, more widebodies are better again. The point isn't to get into specific numbers, just to point out the advantage of widebodies waxes and wanes depending on a variety of factors, chief among them being where you are on the list.

My real point/question is driven by the comments about LCAL pilots trying to "steal seniority" because from the viewpoint of much of our list, that's exactly what the LUAL proposal does. LUAL's proposed list moves many of us out of a status/category we held proir to the merger. I hold no ill will because of the proposal, the respective proposals are what they are and the board will make a decision. My bet is that at my seniority, the decision will be in the middle, meaning neither side held the high ground.

gettinbumped

I can appreciate those thoughts. Overall, I think the goal is to have more Widebodies, but certainly there is a benefit to getting an earlier upgrade on a NB. I don't know how it is on the LCAL side, but the LUAL side seniority for WB F/O's is pretty equal to NB CAP. The money is better on the narrowbody, but the QOL is much better on the WB, so it seems to split folks down the middle.

By the "merger date", which one are you using to determine that LUAL pilots will push LCAL pilots out of their seats? I can see that being a concern for sure, but from our perspective there are 3 years of upgrades (some of them 2006 hires) who will not be flushed, and will continue to hold that seat even though they couldn't have dreamed of it in 2010. So certainly both sides have their frustrations and concerns.

Anyway, looking forward to putting this in the rearview

Slammer

As I understand, the arbitrators will consider everything within labor law, historical precedence and all the ALPA merger policy. They have the stick now, and to state what " they cannot reward, and precedent they cannot set", is pretty bold and absolute....don't you think!

Staller

Larry - we know how you feel about supporting our troops in harms way. Would you like to give us your opinion of Snowden?

Scott Stoops

Agree. They will also look at how that historical precedence has changed, and more importantly - why it changed. I've said this before - ALPA has to protect itself. As much as you might believe that ALPA is taking a hands-off approach to this, it is an ALPA dispute that is very important to the organization. It needs to work, needs to be fair, and it needs to comply with ALPA merger policy (including the intent of the policy).

To presume that a proposition that addresses only 1/2 of one of the 3 tenets of ALPA merger policy and is even more extreme than the Nic award will be accepted or frankly, even considered, is patently absurd.

This is much bigger than just this merger. There will be more. This ALPA merger/sli will set a precedent. I think it was a mistake for the CAL side to basically ignore ALPA merger policy. They basically gave ALPA National and the arbitrators the finger and argued that something outrageous was absolutely reasonable.

Scott

Old UCAL CA

This board is nuts.

routemap

Pretty much!!

I think it's just people dealing with the stress of the ISL. If it makes someone feel better claiming they are right, and in a better position then so be it.

The arbitration award will probably be a surprise to both sides.

LAX Pilot

I agree. I think they will not go with the 50% longevity and provide a much higher percentage factor similar to the Colgan Pinnacle Mesaba award of 100% within each status and category class.

Jaded N Cynical

The only person who will be happy is number 1, everyone else will be disappointed.

cadetdrivr

Just as long as everyone else will be equally disappointed....