Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > United
Kirby wants bigger RJ's. >

Kirby wants bigger RJ's.

Search

Notices

Kirby wants bigger RJ's.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-01-2017, 08:10 AM
  #141  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 756 left
Posts: 766
Default

Originally Posted by jsled
RJ LOA ('97ish) and Contract 2000? Limited to 50 seats and 60,000 lbs. I wish we had that scope now.
They each allowed more RJs than what was allowed prior to their ratification.
89Pistons is offline  
Old 06-01-2017, 08:17 AM
  #142  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Default

Originally Posted by 89Pistons
They each allowed more RJs than what was allowed prior to their ratification.
Agreed. Tied to mainline growth and limited to 50 seats. Not a big wholesale giveaway like C2003.
jsled is offline  
Old 06-01-2017, 08:27 AM
  #143  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 419
Default

Originally Posted by Probe
Here is a short history of mainline bankruptcies in the last 15 years:

1. USAIR ALPA pilots voted yes for multiple paycuts.
2. UAL ALPA pilots voted yes for multiple paycuts.
3. DAL ALPA pilots voted yes for multiple payouts.
4. AMR APA pilots voted no. The judge at the 1113 hearing told AMR to go pack sand over cutting the pay of the pilots. A few months later, a pay RAISE was negotiated coming out of bankruptcy.

UAL pilots spent 9 years making half of what they should have. USAIR pilots spent, I can't remember, 12-14 years doing the same.

American pilots, with different union leadership, stood their ground and voted no.

I was willing to risk my job at United. Unfortunately I was outvoted by the majority who were not. The job became so bad, I voted with my feet, and left on a voluntary furlough. I have no faith in us as a group, or our union leadership, to effect a different outcome the next time the bully comes for our lunch money.
I don't think your giving UAL MEC enough credit for protecting your pay back in 2008 when almost every US Pilot group was working w their respective management to mitigate furloughs via pay or guarantee reductions (i.e. FedEx, CAL...). UAL MEC publicly pushed back on this concept essentially masking pay protection for pilots out of furlough territory / no resolve to fight for junior pilots jobs by stating "it's not ALPA furloughing you it's Glenn" as if blaming Glenn for the Oil tripling and the Great Recession makes any damn sense (ironic since UAL fought furiously in 85 for the pilots in training now running the show in the MEC). I think you should give them credit for saving every dollar of your compensation in the last case of concession requests, 08.
Bit of history that was important to 1476 pilots.

Last edited by ChrisJT6; 06-01-2017 at 09:00 AM.
ChrisJT6 is offline  
Old 06-01-2017, 09:06 AM
  #144  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 264
Default

I want a hotter and younger wife, but I know financially that's impracticable. What we want, and what we get are often quite different.

Kirby can want all day, but the reality is he knows UAL MEC won't let that see the light of day.
Jaded N Cynical is offline  
Old 06-01-2017, 09:59 AM
  #145  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,752
Default

Originally Posted by jsled
RJ LOA ('97ish) and Contract 2000? Limited to 50 seats and 60,000 lbs. I wish we had that scope now.
Right. Excluding the AWAC -146's and SPECIFIC tail numbers that I believe had phase out dates.
John Carr is offline  
Old 06-01-2017, 10:19 AM
  #146  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ThePenguin328's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Position: B737
Posts: 141
Default

Originally Posted by ChrisJT6
I don't think your giving UAL MEC enough credit for protecting your pay back in 2008 when almost every US Pilot group was working w their respective management to mitigate furloughs via pay or guarantee reductions (i.e. FedEx, CAL...). UAL MEC publicly pushed back on this concept essentially masking pay protection for pilots out of furlough territory / no resolve to fight for junior pilots jobs by stating "it's not ALPA furloughing you it's Glenn" as if blaming Glenn for the Oil tripling and the Great Recession makes any damn sense (ironic since UAL fought furiously in 85 for the pilots in training now running the show in the MEC). I think you should give them credit for saving every dollar of your compensation in the last case of concession requests, 08.
Bit of history that was important to 1476 pilots.
That's all very true. Just to add on to that, when the Lual pilot group voted on bringing back the furlough fund in 2008 to help those in need pay for Cobra benefits guess how close the vote went.... less than 40% of the pilots voted on the ballot and of those that did vote it was split 60/40. So about 1,000 pilots out of 6500 voted to send the bottom 1500 out into the financial crisis with no medical insurance. And as far as I'm concerned, a non-vote is the same as a no vote.
ThePenguin328 is offline  
Old 06-01-2017, 03:26 PM
  #147  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Default

Originally Posted by John Carr
Right. Excluding the AWAC -146's and SPECIFIC tail numbers that I believe had phase out dates.
That goes back to the original 1980s code share....and like you mentioned, was tail number specific. But you are correct. Good thing that clause is long gone.
jsled is offline  
Old 06-01-2017, 03:36 PM
  #148  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Default

Originally Posted by ThePenguin328
That's all very true. Just to add on to that, when the Lual pilot group voted on bringing back the furlough fund in 2008 to help those in need pay for Cobra benefits guess how close the vote went.... less than 40% of the pilots voted on the ballot and of those that did vote it was split 60/40. So about 1,000 pilots out of 6500 voted to send the bottom 1500 out into the financial crisis with no medical insurance. And as far as I'm concerned, a non-vote is the same as a no vote.
But it did pass, and it was paid. Because it was the right thing to do.
AND once it did pass, it was a MANDATORY dues assessment. I laughed at how fast a deadbeat would start paying up when threatened with his job by our our Membership Committee Chair. LOL. Incidentally, If the republican National RTW bill becomes law, a Cobra vote like that would be meaningless....all those non/no voters would just flake out and not a damn thing could be done about it.

Sled
jsled is offline  
Old 06-01-2017, 04:49 PM
  #149  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ItnStln's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,588
Default

Originally Posted by Sniper66
Lufthansa copy
Let's give them credit for starting this years ago !
How is that a Lufthansa copy?
ItnStln is offline  
Old 06-01-2017, 05:08 PM
  #150  
Banned
 
Joined APC: May 2014
Position: Tom’s Whipping boy.
Posts: 1,182
Default Why do we play along?

Every time ground or tower calls out traffic to follow, etc.. the SkyWest, or whatever RJ , which is actually in United livery, we obligingly play along and presume we are certain which aircraft they are calling, instead of asking if it is the "SkyWest regional in United livery".

Small point maybe, but you eat an elephant one bite at a time.

Is this no longer a requirement?

I recall in the past, during mergers there were times we were directed to use the "in the livery" call sign.
BMEP100 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Guard Dude
Delta
201720
04-06-2022 06:59 AM
IA1125
Regional
11
05-21-2012 08:36 AM
withthatsaid182
Regional
55
12-09-2008 04:59 PM
johnso29
Mergers and Acquisitions
19
04-14-2008 04:18 PM
RockBottom
Major
0
03-23-2005 12:51 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices