Mgt JCBA Proposal - Oct 28,2010
10-30-2010, 07:35 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: Sitting down and facing front in a plane
Posts: 136
BTW, you don't need a law degree or MBA to know what I know. You simply have to have your eyes wide open, your mouth shut (a lot of the time) and your mind thinking independently.
Good luck -
JD
10-30-2010, 07:59 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: 747 Captain, retired
Posts: 928
Yes, United was big in 2001, but not this big. United did NOT have near this many planes, pilots, FAs or other employee groups. Sorry, the numbers just don't bear that out. I believe the number of pilots only reached as high as 11,000 and the number of planes about 650, or so, back in 2000/01. United now has over 12,500 pilots and about 700 mainline airframes.
Skippy is EXACTLY right. United Pilots will NEVER be allowed to strike for two reasons. First, it is almost inconceiveable that the United MEC would be released from mediation by NMB to begin a cooling off period after having broken the law so blatantly by their actions in 2007/08 and their subsequent preliminary injunction handed down by Judge Lefkow (and STONGLY upheld by the appelate court judge). Yes, that injunction is STILL in full force and effect indefinitely.
Second, the PEB that would be convened (regardless of which party was occupying the Oval Office) would instruct the parties to "return to the table" until an agreement had been reached. No sitting president would, in his/her right mind, allow an airline the size of the new United to stop flying, especially in light of the volatile nature and fragility of today's economy.
It's just not going to happen, IMHO.
JD
Skippy is EXACTLY right. United Pilots will NEVER be allowed to strike for two reasons. First, it is almost inconceiveable that the United MEC would be released from mediation by NMB to begin a cooling off period after having broken the law so blatantly by their actions in 2007/08 and their subsequent preliminary injunction handed down by Judge Lefkow (and STONGLY upheld by the appelate court judge). Yes, that injunction is STILL in full force and effect indefinitely.
Second, the PEB that would be convened (regardless of which party was occupying the Oval Office) would instruct the parties to "return to the table" until an agreement had been reached. No sitting president would, in his/her right mind, allow an airline the size of the new United to stop flying, especially in light of the volatile nature and fragility of today's economy.
It's just not going to happen, IMHO.
JD
10-30-2010, 08:00 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: 73 CA EWR
Posts: 514
JD you really are a troll. Having said that I do agree with you that it is unlikely a strike would be allowed by any administration. But there doesn't have to be a strike to achieve the objectives sought after. The greatest leverage of all is to do nothing. I don't know how many times I have just told the FO to sit on his hands and stay off the radio. The system will easily cave when the pilots decide to stop shoring up all of management's ineptness.
10-30-2010, 09:48 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 126
Spot on, blockout. Injunction-smunction...if the pilots are unified (granted, that's a big "if"), we control the airline. Not because we have a ton of power, but bc everything is built on razor thin margins so it doesn't take much for the operation to come unglued.
10-30-2010, 10:03 AM
#35
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 55
Seeing as how over half of the domestic flying is done by regionals, why wouldn't United be allowed to strike. The impact of essential commerce would only be in raised rates to get on the few seats that the 70 seaters have after all the mainline shuts down for a few days, weeks, months (it would ultimately be left to management to really decide how long they would want the strike to continue).
If their argument is that we are too big to strike because of the effect on commerce then fine, bring all regional flying under mainline, and I will reluctantly agree with that idea, until then, more than half of the planes are not covered by our CBA flying passengers who bought tickets on CAL/UAL.
Until that happens, under this administration we WILL be allowed to walk when necessary, and I will see you all on the picket line.
If their argument is that we are too big to strike because of the effect on commerce then fine, bring all regional flying under mainline, and I will reluctantly agree with that idea, until then, more than half of the planes are not covered by our CBA flying passengers who bought tickets on CAL/UAL.
Until that happens, under this administration we WILL be allowed to walk when necessary, and I will see you all on the picket line.
10-30-2010, 10:26 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: Sitting down and facing front in a plane
Posts: 136
Are you kidding me. President Obama is "beholding" to unions. He will follow the advice of OUR collective MEC's and look the other way if a strike is authorized - Don't kid yourselves; Save your money and be prepared; a strike is VERY possible and perhaps needed as the only way to let management know that it's time to send Glen's "employee enslavement theorys" to the trash heap of failed idea's.
"Yes....I look forward to your next syllable with great eagerness. Usually one must go to a bowling alley to meet someone of your stature." Spoken, of course, in a very proper British dailect.
- Hobson, in the classic movie Arthur.
JD
10-30-2010, 10:59 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: B-777 left
Posts: 1,415
JD you really are a troll. Having said that I do agree with you that it is unlikely a strike would be allowed by any administration. But there doesn't have to be a strike to achieve the objectives sought after. The greatest leverage of all is to do nothing. I don't know how many times I have just told the FO to sit on his hands and stay off the radio. The system will easily cave when the pilots decide to stop shoring up all of management's ineptness.
10-30-2010, 11:37 AM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: 737 CAPT
Posts: 1,900
Originally Posted by oldmako
Well, THANKS for posting that. The limp johnson crowd makes me want to hurl. We will only get what we are willing to fight for, no more. There is no benevolence on Whacker Drive!
If we pansyfy and cry to our Mommies we'll get spanked...again. Mgmt has unlimited funds and far more of a long term view than labor. They plan on us capitulating and greasing our worn out poop shoots so they can have their way with us again. And, to reline their already full pockets. Did you read what they offered IAM?? YGBSM!
I like to think that a large enough percentage of the UAL types are still so raw from the reaming we received to "save" the airline, that in the end we will prevail. Of course I could also be smoking Ganja.
If we pansyfy and cry to our Mommies we'll get spanked...again. Mgmt has unlimited funds and far more of a long term view than labor. They plan on us capitulating and greasing our worn out poop shoots so they can have their way with us again. And, to reline their already full pockets. Did you read what they offered IAM?? YGBSM!
I like to think that a large enough percentage of the UAL types are still so raw from the reaming we received to "save" the airline, that in the end we will prevail. Of course I could also be smoking Ganja.
Seriously, you post some funny stuff. Must be a hoot to fly with on a trip. You tell the truth in such colorful metaphors.
10-30-2010, 11:42 AM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 126
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
