SpecialTracking

True. I'm just trying to get a clear picture of what he's thinking. I'm afraid the misinformation continues to be a disservice for our goals going forward.

C11DCA

Depends.

Our contract states longevity as time on the property, including time furloughed.

3-B-3 A Pilot shall continue to accrue longevity when on furlough.

But the arbitrators defined longevity as time on the property, not including time furloughed, based upon start date at mainline.

So a late 1998 hire who got furloughed after 9/11 in fall of 2003, recalled about 2 years later, and never got furloughed since would have around 14 years longevity now as compared to me as a never furloughed 1998 hire with 16+. We were "paired" up with 2006 hires. So 7-8 years difference in longevity (actual time on the property)

So at the time of the merger (2010), it is fact that some LUAL pilots who were on furlough indeed had more time on the property then LCAL pilots who had never been furloughed.

The arbitrators list is a math equation. 65% Status and Category, 35% longevity. As such it did indeed put furloughed pilots ahead of non furloughed. Conversely it also harmed some who had never been furloughed by discounting longevity (myself as an example)

Am I bitter or upset? Nope. Am I happy with the result? Nope. It is what it is and there is nothing anyone can do to change it absent some criminal wrongdoing being proven. An agreed upon process was followed, each side presented their proposals and countered the other side's, and in the end the Arbitrators came up with a list they thought best complied with the Merger policy and the facts as presented.

Time to move on because contract openers are a year away. The company is the adversary, not each other. Scabs of course are excluded from the unity appeal.

DC

syd111

Every time I read these posts and then somewhere in it all I see the word unity. I just shake my head when I see that word written here.

Scott Stoops

So you really didn't read any of the award then right? Or any of the records of the events? Your confidence in your position is breathtaking if that is the case.

FWIW,

1. Furlough time was not included in the award calculation. Non-furlough time was absolutely included.

2. The attorneys were not "assigned" by ALPA. They were chosen and retained by each MEC merger comittee (so each MEC effectively). Full choice. Having to spoken to several in the know, had Katz been a somewhat necessary choice for the UAL MEC, they would have looked elsewhere.

3. The ALPA merger policy was absolutely changed to avoid another Nic award that damaged ALPA. This happened before any UAL/CON merger announcement, and happened with the fingerprints of Brucia all over it.

4. If you would have read the manuscripts, this entire event was absolutely adversarial. How could it not be. I read most of it. It was rendered by an independant panel applying ALPA merger policy. At no point was it about fairness in an individual pilot sense. It was about following ALPA merger policy to the entire group.

In short, if you feel wronged - look no further than your negotiating committee, Pierce and the CALMEC. Most of all, look to Brucia.

Re: your complete focus on ALPA trying to screw the CAL pilot group, I'd say you're remarkably misinformed.

XHooker

My recollection is the scope relief the company asked for was international "joint venture" flying, not domestic. The 147 (148?) had no say in whether they stayed or not, but to a pilot, all of the one's I spoke with said they'd rather be furloughed than see us give up any scope. Ironically, as I recall, the merger two years later rendered CALALPAs JV scope protections moot (that's "mute" in pilot talk).

XHooker

Probably the best two sentence summation of the SLI there is. Some won... some lost... but the arbs were just trying to follow policy for the group as a whole. It would have been impossible to make each pilot's seniority match their pre-merger career expectations.

cadetdrivr

FWIW, CAL joined the UAL/LH Atlantic JV in 2009.

DOT Approves Continental/United/Lufthansa/Air Canada Antitrust Immunity with Limited Carveouts - CBS News

XHooker

GB, the good news is this isn't a LCAL vs. LUAL rather, it's LEC 171 vs. the rest of bases. We're returning to fighting based on our LEC rather than which legacy we came from. I guess that's progress.

XHooker

I don't know the specifics well enough, but as I recall it was for Pacific flying. However, I don't know why the theater makes a difference.

cadetdrivr

I don't either.

FWIW, the Pacific UAL/CAL/ANA JV happened in 2011 so it was post-merger but pre-UPA.