Letter from a gojets pilot
09-06-2009, 10:58 PM
#52
Gets Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: On Top
Posts: 742
Again you're trying to justify a wrong with a wrong. Why don't you ask those UA guys why they're there next time you see them turning their ID's around in STL or ORD? See those guys don't care about anyone other than themselves. They will eventually go back to UA, so they don't care, they think it's their flying, thus it's ok to circumvent an existing ALPA negotiated contract. I know plenty of UA guys that passed on the offer to go work for gojets, because they knew that long term they would only be hurting this profession and the guys at TSA.
So answer the question...how would you feel if you were one of the many that were left out on the street at TSA by the replacement workers hired to cover the flying at gojets?
How would you feel if Hulas opened another company, and took some of your frames at gojets away, and you lost your job? What if the courts and that pathetic thing you guys call a union said it was ok? Would that still make it right? I bet you can't answer, nor will you answer any of them.
09-07-2009, 05:03 AM
#53
Sprung
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Posts: 674
Again you're trying to justify a wrong with a wrong. Why don't you ask those UA guys why they're there next time you see them turning their ID's around in STL or ORD? See those guys don't care about anyone other than themselves. They will eventually go back to UA, so they don't care, they think it's their flying, thus it's ok to circumvent an existing ALPA negotiated contract. I know plenty of UA guys that passed on the offer to go work for gojets, because they knew that long term they would only be hurting this profession and the guys at TSA.
So answer the question...how would you feel if you were one of the many that were left out on the street at TSA by the replacement workers hired to cover the flying at gojets?
How would you feel if Hulas opened another company, and took some of your frames at gojets away, and you lost your job? What if the courts and that pathetic thing you guys call a union said it was ok? Would that still make it right? I bet you can't answer, nor will you answer any of them.
So answer the question...how would you feel if you were one of the many that were left out on the street at TSA by the replacement workers hired to cover the flying at gojets?
How would you feel if Hulas opened another company, and took some of your frames at gojets away, and you lost your job? What if the courts and that pathetic thing you guys call a union said it was ok? Would that still make it right? I bet you can't answer, nor will you answer any of them.
SHOCKING!!!!!!!!!!!!
09-07-2009, 06:06 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: LeftSeat PA-44
Posts: 528
Not to change the direction of this ever so magical thread but why is it when the ruling is against TSA in the TSA/GoJets fiasco then the court is wrong and the ruling means nothing. However when the ruling is against US Airways it is binding and just?
09-07-2009, 06:40 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Reclined
Posts: 2,168
Hatred you say. Well, let's put things in perspective for you all naive one. Upon TSA trying to negotiate better rates for the the CRJ700, Hulas decided not to negotiate, but rather open up another airline where he could get folks to come in and fly for what was at the time 50 seater pay setting a negative precedent for the industry. In the process of it, the contract workers that took the jobs at gojets managed to put a few dozen pilots at TSA out of work. How would you feel if you were one of them?
Believe me, that guy left at the gate knew I was serious. Not only did he try to sneak onto our aircraft as a non-rev, but he acted exactly the way all of you at that alter-ego operation do, as if we owed him something.
Believe me, that guy left at the gate knew I was serious. Not only did he try to sneak onto our aircraft as a non-rev, but he acted exactly the way all of you at that alter-ego operation do, as if we owed him something.
So, given the choices, they decided to take a page from the AMR playbook and create a second airline, with a seperate pilot list, all doing the same jobs... no big surprise there either. Had you been in their place, you would have done the same.
Opening an alter-ego isn't illegal, that's what the courts proved, neither is crossing a picket line, but they are both still wrong. Apparently, you have no regards for the fact that day in and day out your company, and your very presence as a contract worker at this outfit, continues to put real pilots out on the street. .
09-07-2009, 06:57 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
[QUOTE=Bond;674385]Again you're trying to justify a wrong with a wrong. Why don't you ask those UA guys why they're there next time you see them turning their ID's around in STL or ORD? See those guys don't care about anyone other than themselves. They will eventually go back to UA, so they don't care, they think it's their flying, thus it's ok to circumvent an existing ALPA negotiated contract. I know plenty of UA guys that passed on the offer to go work for gojets, because they knew that long term they would only be hurting this profession and the guys at TSA.
1-C-1-f Feeder Carrier Operation of Small Jets Larger
than 50 Seats
A Feeder Carrier may perform Feeder Flying operating
Small Jets with a certificated seating capacity in excess of
fifty (50) seats if it also provides job opportunities to
furloughed United Pilots in accordane with LOA 03-22
It IS their flying Mr. Bond. They ARE entitled to it, by contract. You see, the seats on the 70 seat a/c are sold by United Airlines. The actual fee for departure carrier is irrelevant, it could be GJ, RAH, or Mesa. If they fly 70 seaters, they have to offer jobs to furloughed United pilots
Quote <So answer the question...how would you feel if you were one of the many that were left out on the street at TSA by the replacement workers hired to cover the flying at gojets? >
How would you feel if you were one of the many mainline guys on the street by the replacement workers hired to cover mainline flying?
1-C-1-f Feeder Carrier Operation of Small Jets Larger
than 50 Seats
A Feeder Carrier may perform Feeder Flying operating
Small Jets with a certificated seating capacity in excess of
fifty (50) seats if it also provides job opportunities to
furloughed United Pilots in accordane with LOA 03-22
It IS their flying Mr. Bond. They ARE entitled to it, by contract. You see, the seats on the 70 seat a/c are sold by United Airlines. The actual fee for departure carrier is irrelevant, it could be GJ, RAH, or Mesa. If they fly 70 seaters, they have to offer jobs to furloughed United pilots
Quote <So answer the question...how would you feel if you were one of the many that were left out on the street at TSA by the replacement workers hired to cover the flying at gojets? >
How would you feel if you were one of the many mainline guys on the street by the replacement workers hired to cover mainline flying?
09-07-2009, 07:06 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 999
Apparently you need some educationas well. While much of what you say has some truth behind it and did play a part in the process; the larger issue for Hulas at the time was the AMR contract restriction. TSA could NOT add 70 seaters on their certificate and remain and AMR subcontractor. I'm sure they could have renegotiated sections of the CPA in such a way as to allow the larger airframes so long as they didn't touch AMR routes... but as your CPA was worded at the time; there could be no over 50's at TSA while subcontracting for AMR.
We all understand the bigger issue at the time. The issue for us was not that a second airline was created, it is that it was stafffed with a different list to circumvent and ALPA contract.
I also hope that AMR playbook comment was a reference to AE, not AX. AX was a whole different animal than this.
09-07-2009, 07:08 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 888
Our ALPA airline doesn't have GOjet on the jumpseat agreement, therefore we don't have to deny them jumpseats, it's already done ahead of time by our union.
As for everything being "alright" now that UA guys are at gojet, I think those guys might be the worst offenders of the bunch. Ok, so maybe it is their flying, but if that's the case then I guess the real solution would be to get that flying back to mainline, not take a job at the express carrier. If anybody is "racing to the bottom" it's these guys.... they have now effectively replaced themselves with... themselves for a huge paycut. Would someone else have replaced them? Well I guess we'll never know now, these guys are too busy doing their own jobs for less...
As for everything being "alright" now that UA guys are at gojet, I think those guys might be the worst offenders of the bunch. Ok, so maybe it is their flying, but if that's the case then I guess the real solution would be to get that flying back to mainline, not take a job at the express carrier. If anybody is "racing to the bottom" it's these guys.... they have now effectively replaced themselves with... themselves for a huge paycut. Would someone else have replaced them? Well I guess we'll never know now, these guys are too busy doing their own jobs for less...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
