krudawg

Let us not forget the geography; San Francisco is the city of "the enlightened ones" surrounded by the great unwashed. It is the urban playground for liberal ideas and some of the finest dining this side of Bakersfield. Oh what a paradise San Francisco is and will be, now and into the future.
Seriously, San Francisco is a great place to live and a truly beautiful city except for the earthquakes.

pilot64golfer

Neither side got longevity credit for time after 2010. So you make it seem like a CAL guy stopped accruing it, but the UAL ones did. Longevity from 2010-2013 didn't matter because the merger happened in 2010 and this process retroactively made a list based on the S&C and Longevity of the merger date just like every other merger.

The pipe dream of 2013 longevity and 2013 S&C didn't come to fruition.

We "won" because we followed policy and asked for a list that made sense, and not because the arbs didn't reach outside policy and use a future merger date or made up status and category ignoring airplane size and fantasy staffing numbers.

pilot64golfer

Well in general, guys hired before you tend to be senior to you and guys hired after you tend to be junior. I agree that we do not have a DOH merger policy like most unions do, but it is a part of policy, and he been in the past. It means something and can not be ignored.

The CAL side looked at the hire dates of the UAL pilots and then probably pooped their pants. They then devised a scheme to rationalize that if you didn't "bring a job" then you got stapled which was a wish and prayer and not reality. All of the furloughees for both sides were given 0 credit for status and category.

I think there would have been less emotion over this from the CAL side if someone had waved a wand in October 2010 and just made the list overnight. Both sides had pilots on furlough, the junior Guppy Captain at CAL was a 1998 hire, and many CAL pilots had recently been moved back in position because of a reduction in flying. The three years post merger just let guys feed their fantasies and be led down the primrose path by their MEC.

ewr756drive

@ pilot-
CAL pilots didn't poop our pants about UAL senority.... a date of hire senority merge would have screwed the top 3rd of UAL'S list....goodbye whale capt. The ONLY people who wanted date of hire were '96 and above L-UAL. ...
Drag the fight on as long as you want with your flame bate....The fight is over....The argument is over...like a political issue...or talking about your in-laws....when will you see that you will NEVER convince the "other side" you are JUSTIFIED!

But then again...you obviously have an agenda and a point to prove so why would this reality stop you.

CousinEddie

Are you saying United North at it again......again?

By the way, who gives a hoot about being a whale captain. It pays the same as a 767-400, just like you wanted it.

We didn't get date of hire, never expected it, never asked for it. Certainly didn't expect your proposal to be so extreme that it stapled all early 1997 and beyond L-UALs to the bottom despite having never been furloughed. Even though you did ask for that, you didn't get it.

pilot64golfer

This is probably why it was totally disregarded. I wonder what the ISL would have looked like if a reasonable proposal had been put forth. To bad no LCAL pilots stepped up and waved the BS flag.

El Gwopo

Don't remember LUAL pilots waving the BS flag when they wanted a higher pay rate for the 747. That delayed stuff. THANKS!

SpecialTracking

A beautiful city indeed. Where else could you find $2.50 pints of Tricerahops only to be chased by the best pizza imagined two doors down. I gotz my priorities.

CousinEddie

They had moved beyond that issue in 2010. But hey as an Airbus guy, I say thanks to you!

How did we get pay banding in this TA and how did the 767-400 get banded with the 777 and 747-400? · The TA pay banding was a compromise of two different experiences and was one issue the JNC could not resolve internally. The MECs ultimately gave direction to their respective Negotiating Committees in 2010:
o Prior to commencing joint negotiations, the top CAL pay band already included the 767-400
o CAL MEC was for maintaining banding because their bands pulled pay up through the captured value of reduced training costs
o UAL MEC was against banding because their bands pulled pay down in BK
· MECs had to resolve this issue before the JNC could pass a comprehensive proposal to the Company
o JNC sought direction from their respective MECs but the MECs could not agree
o JNC continued to explore ways to pay aircraft based on seat capacity, flight range, weight, thrust, seat and cargo capacity, etc. but could not find a solution that was satisfactory to both MECs.
o October 2010 the JNC came up with pay scales to present to their respective MECs as a starting point for pay discussions. Neither MEC found an acceptable solution and further discussions were needed
· UAL Merger Council was brought in for a Special MEC meeting in Denver on November 11-12, 2010
o Merger Committee and Merger Counsel briefed United MEC and provided clarity on the issue
o UAL MEC passed direction to the United MEC Negotiating Committee regarding pay bands based on the clear input of our Merger Council and Merger Committee
o TA pay bands were crafted per this direction, and with close consideration of the current and planned fleet composition, with special attention given to ensuring value would be directed in the proper direction

Although the UAL MEC sought to unband the pay rates, both the Company and the CAL MEC wanted to maintain bands albeit for different reasons; the Company enjoyed the reduced training costs, and the CAL MEC was driven by their experience of using bands to pull lower-paying equipment up to a higher rate. As evidence of this, notice that the CAL 737 pay raise in the TA is only 12%, the lowest of any fleet, confirming that the 737 benefited from being banded-up previously. Additionally, the banding increased the 320 pay well above the industry comparison.

El Gwopo

So, why didn't you want pay bands again? Just in case of bk?