767Jetz
Do you think all 1400+ furloughed pilots at United should be stapled to the bottom of the new CAL / UAL list, thereby giving them a 2010 hire date?
What would be better for UAL, CAL, DAL, AA pilots in a merger with US Airways. Having guys in their mid to late 50's senior to them and fenced in to their own bases, or having guys in their early to mid 30's senior to them with no fences?
First of all, UA's MEC has been very straight forward about furloughs from the day the merger was announced. While the merger committee will work in the interest of ALL UA pilots, they have already clearly said that furloughs are historically NOT considered to have brought a job to the table.
As for the UA pilots on furlough, they currently have a seniority number that buys them a place in line to come back to the lowest paid equipment we have at the time (be it A320, 737, or E190) in the right seat. Guess what? After the merger they will still have that same place in line to come back. The best thing for them is to have a stronger company to come back to. So to answer your question I think the furloughed UA pilots should be behind any CO pilot who has a job as of the merger date, regardless of anyone's date of hire.
As I stated above, DOH would actually unfairly favor me to a large degree in this merger. I do not expect it nor would I support my own MEC if they tried to get it. It's that simple.
And as for fencing people into their domicile, that is a crock. Because then the company can shift flying to what ever domicile they choose, including aircraft the pilot group never flew. And what about growth aircraft? Just because the company wants to fly it out of one domicile it automatically belongs to that group even thought the growth was a result of opportunities and feed that is a direct result of the merger? And you think that's fair? Now if you want to fence people into their FLEET, SEAT, and DOMICILE for what they brought to the table, and then share all growth and a ratio of attrition, that might be a starting point. But that's not what your MEC asked for during mediation, was it.
You see some of us are able to look at this with the benefit of having dealt with your group in 2000, and see how two faced you really are. Back then, when UA talked about fencing the east off the 747 and 777 practically forever, you guys screamed bloody murder! When we tried saying that you should be fenced into what you brought to the table, again you guys screamed bloody murder! Now suddenly you think it's fair to fence everything off because low and behold, this time around it clearly benefits you to do so. And don't try the old BS about "that was ALPA and this is USAPA." Call yourselves what you want, it is the the same guys running the show now as it was then. Nothing new 10 years later.
