SO - Where's the SLI?
07-21-2016, 08:05 AM
#772
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
You DID note the footnote the LAA's initial proposal that confirmed all 3 committees agreed that prior time at regional carriers would not be counted in their proposals, yes ?
It's ironic that the ONLY committee to yes, make an end run around that was the East committee claiming that Mid-Atlantic pilots were really LUS pilots based on the concept of an Operating certificate and thus even though flying for a regional that was not accessable as a valid LUS bid status for all LUS pilots were building "sweat equity" at LUS while flying for a regional carrier affiliate. Of course, those at Eagle were not.
It's all subjective interpretation where each side attempts to define what appropriate boundaries are that not coincidentally just happen to benefit THEIR interests. Please get off the Eagle flow bashing choo-choo considering the hypocritical position the East committee too with their own pilots flying for a regional and the concept of mainline longevity. It doesn't float IMO.
It's ironic that the ONLY committee to yes, make an end run around that was the East committee claiming that Mid-Atlantic pilots were really LUS pilots based on the concept of an Operating certificate and thus even though flying for a regional that was not accessable as a valid LUS bid status for all LUS pilots were building "sweat equity" at LUS while flying for a regional carrier affiliate. Of course, those at Eagle were not.
It's all subjective interpretation where each side attempts to define what appropriate boundaries are that not coincidentally just happen to benefit THEIR interests. Please get off the Eagle flow bashing choo-choo considering the hypocritical position the East committee too with their own pilots flying for a regional and the concept of mainline longevity. It doesn't float IMO.
The BOA was probably smart enough not to be persuaded by any BS. Can you give them that?
07-21-2016, 08:10 AM
#773
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
All three committees agreed to stipulations, but obviously there were disagreements about exactly what those stipulations actually were... Not a problem. The BOA was clear that no committee would be muzzled. Each would have their say and the BOA would decide.
The BOA was probably smart enough not to be persuaded by any BS. Can you give them that?
The BOA was probably smart enough not to be persuaded by any BS. Can you give them that?
07-21-2016, 08:25 AM
#774
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Position: A330
Posts: 173
Muzzling the west? I feel they woulda been better off with us alone. They could have claimed group 4s as there own and actual money making hubs rather than a loosing hub soon to become a " focus city" and old a320s some of the first off the line soon to be in the desert. If they took date of hire even 5 years ago every single one of them would be captains going into this integration. Let that sink in.
07-21-2016, 08:30 AM
#776
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
You "feel" that way ? What about the West ? Whose "feelings" should prevail when one may be represented by another who has already demonstrated they are more then willing to push aside that entity aside for self-interest ?
In order to claim anything, they first have to have an independent voice. One doesn't claim much with a muzzle, they just grunt a lot and breathe heavily as they watch themselves being flushed down the crapper.
They could have claimed group 4s as there own and actual money making hubs rather than a loosing hub soon to become a " focus city" and old a320s some of the first off the line soon to be in the desert. If they took date of hire even 5 years ago every single one of them would be captains going into this integration. Let that sink in.
07-21-2016, 08:34 AM
#777
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Stimulating conversation compared to the hum-drum life at C & R, yes ?I DID note the uproar over a lawsuit by flow-thru's there. That suit was filed early last year, IIRC, yet some are flipping out as if it's something new. Too much emotion there and not enough observant participants or critical thinkers, IMO.
07-21-2016, 08:37 AM
#778
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
An injunction barring the company would be an extraordinary assertion of judicial discretion into contracts and statutes, IMHO.
07-21-2016, 08:37 AM
#779
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Yes, didn't I say this would heat up as we got closer to the ISL revelation. Stimulating conversation compared to the hum-drum life at C & R, yes ?
I DID note the uproar over a lawsuit by flow-thru's there. That suit was filed early last year, IIRC, yet some are flipping out as if it's something new. Too much emotion there and not enough observant participants or critical thinkers, IMO.
Stimulating conversation compared to the hum-drum life at C & R, yes ?I DID note the uproar over a lawsuit by flow-thru's there. That suit was filed early last year, IIRC, yet some are flipping out as if it's something new. Too much emotion there and not enough observant participants or critical thinkers, IMO.
07-21-2016, 08:40 AM
#780
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Injunctions? Two of them? I can see two petitions, but it's a tall ask to get the courts to withhold the company's contractual rights to the MB statutory list.
An injunction barring the company would be an extraordinary assertion of judicial discretion into contracts and statutes, IMHO.
An injunction barring the company would be an extraordinary assertion of judicial discretion into contracts and statutes, IMHO.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
