So where's your Mea Culpa?
09-05-2013, 09:09 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: EWR B737FO
Posts: 225
The premise of this thread to gloat was really immature. It was just too tempting by one of our 1%'ers to act like this.
We are one group and it does no one any good to be a jerk about the 3panel arb decision.
Let's move on and stop acting like 8 year olds on the playground.
We are one group and it does no one any good to be a jerk about the 3panel arb decision.
Let's move on and stop acting like 8 year olds on the playground.
09-05-2013, 09:11 AM
#32
Peace Love Understanding
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
If we had this list in place like we should have and everything was open for bidding the way it should have been your upgrade time wouldn't change. It just gave you a false sense of entitlement.
Thank God the free-for-all favoring one pilot group has stopped.
Also Thank God the pay banding SLI grab attempt failed except we have to live with 757 pilots paid the same as a guppy now and 747 and 777 paid the lower 767-400 rates....
09-05-2013, 10:45 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2013
Posts: 315
09-05-2013, 11:33 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Position: Somewhere in a hollowed out hole...yet with broadband
Posts: 115
Sunvox as promised...here I am partial "mea culpa" in hand. Though I believe the arbs did exactly what I thought they would do, and that is basically say we were two airlines more alike than different, and both needed each other to survive in the "new" mega carrier industry.
They did indeed use the three tenants of AMP, but they used a lot of discretion in determining the value of each tenant. S/C was straight foward. Longevity was found to pretty much balance out career expectations, so therefore the 35/65. The surprise for me was the furlough with active, but I whole heartedly agree those pilots have been excremated on enough, and as the arbs put it, their "sweat equity" is definitely worth something in this merger. All you have to do is put yourself in their shoes for a nanosecond to realize that. To the good of future pilots in this industry the arbs have set a new precedent. (Colgan/pinnacle notwithstanding)
I made a lot of reference to relative seniority in most of my post's concerning ISL, was I wrong? I think not. Except for the very bottom of the list, the ISL came out very relative (from the 2010 MCD which I accept from the arbs decision.) The merger of active with furloughs definitely skewed the end of the list 2010 relative seniority.
The ARB's have spoken, and there will always be some who fare better than others in these things. I accept the list as fair and equitable. I wish all UAL pilots the best, and hope that growth and retirements will ease the pain of the ISL and merger. It's time to move on.
All the best GB...
They did indeed use the three tenants of AMP, but they used a lot of discretion in determining the value of each tenant. S/C was straight foward. Longevity was found to pretty much balance out career expectations, so therefore the 35/65. The surprise for me was the furlough with active, but I whole heartedly agree those pilots have been excremated on enough, and as the arbs put it, their "sweat equity" is definitely worth something in this merger. All you have to do is put yourself in their shoes for a nanosecond to realize that. To the good of future pilots in this industry the arbs have set a new precedent. (Colgan/pinnacle notwithstanding)
I made a lot of reference to relative seniority in most of my post's concerning ISL, was I wrong? I think not. Except for the very bottom of the list, the ISL came out very relative (from the 2010 MCD which I accept from the arbs decision.) The merger of active with furloughs definitely skewed the end of the list 2010 relative seniority.
The ARB's have spoken, and there will always be some who fare better than others in these things. I accept the list as fair and equitable. I wish all UAL pilots the best, and hope that growth and retirements will ease the pain of the ISL and merger. It's time to move on.
All the best GB...
09-05-2013, 11:41 AM
#35
Peace Love Understanding
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
Sunvox as promised...here I am partial "mea culpa" in hand. Though I believe the arbs did exactly what I thought they would do, and that is basically say we were two airlines more alike than different, and both needed each other to survive in the "new" mega carrier industry.
They did indeed use the three tenants of AMP, but they used a lot of discretion in determining the value of each tenant. S/C was straight foward. Longevity was found to pretty much balance out career expectations, so therefore the 35/65. The surprise for me was the furlough with active, but I whole heartedly agree those pilots have been excremated on enough, and as the arbs put it, their "sweat equity" is definitely worth something in this merger. All you have to do is put yourself in their shoes for a nanosecond to realize that. To the good of future pilots in this industry the arbs have set a new precedent. (Colgan/pinnacle notwithstanding)
I made a lot of reference to relative seniority in most of my post's concerning ISL, was I wrong? I think not. Except for the very bottom of the list, the ISL came out very relative (from the 2010 MCD which I accept from the arbs decision.) The merger of active with furloughs definitely skewed the end of the list 2010 relative seniority.
The ARB's have spoken, and there will always be some who fare better than others in these things. I accept the list as fair and equitable. I wish all UAL pilots the best, and hope that growth and retirements will ease the pain of the ISL and merger. It's time to move on.
All the best GB...
They did indeed use the three tenants of AMP, but they used a lot of discretion in determining the value of each tenant. S/C was straight foward. Longevity was found to pretty much balance out career expectations, so therefore the 35/65. The surprise for me was the furlough with active, but I whole heartedly agree those pilots have been excremated on enough, and as the arbs put it, their "sweat equity" is definitely worth something in this merger. All you have to do is put yourself in their shoes for a nanosecond to realize that. To the good of future pilots in this industry the arbs have set a new precedent. (Colgan/pinnacle notwithstanding)
I made a lot of reference to relative seniority in most of my post's concerning ISL, was I wrong? I think not. Except for the very bottom of the list, the ISL came out very relative (from the 2010 MCD which I accept from the arbs decision.) The merger of active with furloughs definitely skewed the end of the list 2010 relative seniority.
The ARB's have spoken, and there will always be some who fare better than others in these things. I accept the list as fair and equitable. I wish all UAL pilots the best, and hope that growth and retirements will ease the pain of the ISL and merger. It's time to move on.
All the best GB...
Completely agree. Lots of folks just need to deal and move on. Whatever happened over the last 3 years that was felt to be inequitable, is now going to be quickly corrected as all the UAL pilots (that's all of us now) will all be able to bid on all the upcoming bids.
(Except for 787 and 747) <--- 2.5 years until #25 arrives, then all fences drop.
I never liked any of the fences BTW.
LP
09-05-2013, 11:57 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Position: Somewhere in a hollowed out hole...yet with broadband
Posts: 115
GB,
Completely agree. Lots of folks just need to deal and move on. Whatever happened over the last 3 years that was felt to be inequitable, is now going to be quickly corrected as all the UAL pilots (that's all of us now) will all be able to bid on all the upcoming bids.
(Except for 787 and 747) <--- 2.5 years until #25 arrives, then all fences drop.
I never liked any of the fences BTW.
LP
Completely agree. Lots of folks just need to deal and move on. Whatever happened over the last 3 years that was felt to be inequitable, is now going to be quickly corrected as all the UAL pilots (that's all of us now) will all be able to bid on all the upcoming bids.
(Except for 787 and 747) <--- 2.5 years until #25 arrives, then all fences drop.
I never liked any of the fences BTW.
LP
09-05-2013, 12:03 PM
#37
Pilot Response
Joined APC: May 2011
Position: A320 Captain
Posts: 479
N-
I don't want to speak for the other APC UAL posters but my point is not and will never be that this list was a "good deal". My point is that guys like Kilder and VSpeed still exist. There are many CAL pilots who genuinely believe the arbitrators were wrong, and Continental had a great future and United had none. I just hope above all hope that some of these guys can start to see just how far off base their expectations have been. Expectations that were in no small measure created by JP and his MC teams arguments which were utterly and wholly rejected by independent observers.
I am sorry that ALPA policy did not push the longevity clause harder and the junior UAL pilots feel as if they lost too much seniority, but I am happy that the arbitrators used their wisdom to actually follow the policy as best as possible.
I used this example in another post months back, and I know it doesn't matter to you either way but here is how I see the issue from the CAL perspective.
Imagine 2 companies that fly only 747s with 1000 pilots each. Company A started flying in 1980 and hired all it's pilots on 1/1/1980. Company B also has 1000 pilots and flies only 747s, but they started flying in 1995 and hired all their pilots on 1/1/1995. Assuming all else is equal a "fair" list would simply merge these two groups 1:1 and so doing would not change the career expectations of Company A one bit, but Company A pilots with 30 years longevity would be sitting on the list with guys that have 15 years less seniority. Hiring datess vary wildly from company to company and that is part of the problem with creating a list like ours.
Bottom line: I don't think this list is "great" but I do think this list is "fair". I only wish V and Kilder would finally come to their senses and agree.
I don't want to speak for the other APC UAL posters but my point is not and will never be that this list was a "good deal". My point is that guys like Kilder and VSpeed still exist. There are many CAL pilots who genuinely believe the arbitrators were wrong, and Continental had a great future and United had none. I just hope above all hope that some of these guys can start to see just how far off base their expectations have been. Expectations that were in no small measure created by JP and his MC teams arguments which were utterly and wholly rejected by independent observers.
I am sorry that ALPA policy did not push the longevity clause harder and the junior UAL pilots feel as if they lost too much seniority, but I am happy that the arbitrators used their wisdom to actually follow the policy as best as possible.
I used this example in another post months back, and I know it doesn't matter to you either way but here is how I see the issue from the CAL perspective.
Imagine 2 companies that fly only 747s with 1000 pilots each. Company A started flying in 1980 and hired all it's pilots on 1/1/1980. Company B also has 1000 pilots and flies only 747s, but they started flying in 1995 and hired all their pilots on 1/1/1995. Assuming all else is equal a "fair" list would simply merge these two groups 1:1 and so doing would not change the career expectations of Company A one bit, but Company A pilots with 30 years longevity would be sitting on the list with guys that have 15 years less seniority. Hiring datess vary wildly from company to company and that is part of the problem with creating a list like ours.
Bottom line: I don't think this list is "great" but I do think this list is "fair". I only wish V and Kilder would finally come to their senses and agree.
Clear right. Out.
09-05-2013, 12:15 PM
#38
Need More Callouts
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Unbridled Enthusiasm
Posts: 2,143
Be that as it may, the Arbitrators chose the UAL proposal and threw ours in the trash. It was a major victory for your side and a loss for ours. I say congrats to your MC for a superbly played hand.
09-05-2013, 12:55 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2011
Posts: 182
Ah, gloating time is it? Well, since you brought it up...
5-16-2013
Originally Posted by Sunvox
I'll say it again; I'll bet 100:1 the board is going to use the list exactly as proposed by UAL, and I'll be the first to come online in September and "eat crow" if I'm wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13n144e
I'll take some of that. Put me down for $100. Seriously.
Looking back at the UAL ISL Proposal you were senior to me. On the final award you're, well...not. The arbitrators modification of the status-category/longevity ratio moved me up about 500 numbers. A significant difference and certainly not "exactly as proposed by UAL." Let me know when your ready to mail a check for $1000 and I'll name the charity.
5-16-2013
Originally Posted by Sunvox
I'll say it again; I'll bet 100:1 the board is going to use the list exactly as proposed by UAL, and I'll be the first to come online in September and "eat crow" if I'm wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13n144e
I'll take some of that. Put me down for $100. Seriously.
Looking back at the UAL ISL Proposal you were senior to me. On the final award you're, well...not. The arbitrators modification of the status-category/longevity ratio moved me up about 500 numbers. A significant difference and certainly not "exactly as proposed by UAL." Let me know when your ready to mail a check for $1000 and I'll name the charity.
I can't believe it took 38 posts for someone on APC to be a math nazi.
09-05-2013, 02:12 PM
#40
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 75
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
