Response to Kravit
01-23-2012, 07:45 AM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Posts: 114
That's a cheap shot. It's been noted many times on this board that the UAL Scope clause was watered down during the BK 1113c process; before that the limit was the same as yours-50 seats.
We did have a very weak MC at that time who was on his own program outside the MEC. Something we all need to be constantly on guard for so that it never happens again.
We did have a very weak MC at that time who was on his own program outside the MEC. Something we all need to be constantly on guard for so that it never happens again.
01-23-2012, 01:51 PM
#65
Banned
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: IAH 737 CA
Posts: 690
That's a cheap shot. It's been noted many times on this board that the UAL Scope clause was watered down during the BK 1113c process; before that the limit was the same as yours-50 seats.
We did have a very weak MC at that time who was on his own program outside the MEC. Something we all need to be constantly on guard for so that it never happens again.
We did have a very weak MC at that time who was on his own program outside the MEC. Something we all need to be constantly on guard for so that it never happens again.
It was still voted on by the membership, was it not?
01-23-2012, 05:19 PM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
Gents,
You will never convince any UAL pilot, and especially any furloughee that the parking of over 100 UAL aircraft wasn't directly tied to this ****merger. Never. So, keep tossing out that "threw them under the bus" crap as though the rank and file UAL pilot had anything to do with the current furloughs and you'll only continue to rub salty**** into a deep and festering wound.
In addition to the 1400 plus guys that Tilton/Smisek laid off there were several thousand dudes who lost their left seat (on the guppy) and they ALL had to bump others to end up in their current seat. So, may I politely add that your ***** slapping comments are taken personally by many thousands of pilots who lost their seats, domiciles, and relative seniority.
To equate parking airframes with something that was voted on two or three contracts ago, and which then put over 50 747s and 50 plus 777s on the property only underscores your ignorance.
UAL would NOT have parked those FULL aircraft for any other reason. We were making plenty of money with those planes and the reason the guys are now yanking your gear is to ***** slap ALPA and to make UCAL managers rich by giving Glen Tilton the big wet dream he fomented the day he arrived.
Connect the dots.
You will never convince any UAL pilot, and especially any furloughee that the parking of over 100 UAL aircraft wasn't directly tied to this ****merger. Never. So, keep tossing out that "threw them under the bus" crap as though the rank and file UAL pilot had anything to do with the current furloughs and you'll only continue to rub salty**** into a deep and festering wound.
In addition to the 1400 plus guys that Tilton/Smisek laid off there were several thousand dudes who lost their left seat (on the guppy) and they ALL had to bump others to end up in their current seat. So, may I politely add that your ***** slapping comments are taken personally by many thousands of pilots who lost their seats, domiciles, and relative seniority.
To equate parking airframes with something that was voted on two or three contracts ago, and which then put over 50 747s and 50 plus 777s on the property only underscores your ignorance.
UAL would NOT have parked those FULL aircraft for any other reason. We were making plenty of money with those planes and the reason the guys are now yanking your gear is to ***** slap ALPA and to make UCAL managers rich by giving Glen Tilton the big wet dream he fomented the day he arrived.
Connect the dots.
Last edited by UAL T38 Phlyer; 01-23-2012 at 07:14 PM. Reason: TOS, Language the Filter Didn't Catch, Ignoring Previous Reminders
01-23-2012, 06:22 PM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Guppy Capt.
Posts: 1,887
That's a cheap shot. It's been noted many times on this board that the UAL Scope clause was watered down during the BK 1113c process; before that the limit was the same as yours-50 seats.
We did have a very weak MC at that time who was on his own program outside the MEC. Something we all need to be constantly on guard for so that it never happens again.
We did have a very weak MC at that time who was on his own program outside the MEC. Something we all need to be constantly on guard for so that it never happens again.
How many seats does Colgan's Q-400 have?
01-23-2012, 08:07 PM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
I have zero expectations on the SLI. None. I think that you have your team, we have ours and the appointee makes his decision. Case closed. I am a junior 12 year FO, I expect to be the same after the integration.
I am deeply worried about the TA. A great contract can go a ong way to ameliorate the the bunions brought on by a lousy seat. My concern lies in the perception that the CAL guys will be easier to coax a yes vote from. There is a great thread on the other forum regarding this issue and I think its dead nuts on.
To summarize, if a reasonable pay raise is offered along with a minimal work rule gain for CAL guys which would actually be a concessionary TA for UAL types and it will pass because of apathy and idiocy on the L-UAL side and too few angry guys on the CAL side. Show a ho a few bucks and.......cognitive forethought is out the door.
As a result, it would take an overwhelming majority of blue NO's to overcome the black yes's. We could end up with a tepid pay raise and more onerous work rules than the crap we now toil under.
I hope that the bomb tossers carry the day, but I fear the boot lickers will win grease up for another. For every post I read that gives me optimism, I go ballistic over the five that don't. And I'm sure that el hefe reads them as well.
Look at what DAL, SWA, UPS and FEDEX make. Hell, look at what JB makes! Too many of our group sell themselves short and are willing to rent their ATPs out for pennies on the dollar.
Nine Billion in the bank. Five Billion in ancillary revenues alone. We drive the machines that generate the cash.
United Continental Ranks High In Ancillary Revenue Collection | AVIATION WEEK
I am deeply worried about the TA. A great contract can go a ong way to ameliorate the the bunions brought on by a lousy seat. My concern lies in the perception that the CAL guys will be easier to coax a yes vote from. There is a great thread on the other forum regarding this issue and I think its dead nuts on.
To summarize, if a reasonable pay raise is offered along with a minimal work rule gain for CAL guys which would actually be a concessionary TA for UAL types and it will pass because of apathy and idiocy on the L-UAL side and too few angry guys on the CAL side. Show a ho a few bucks and.......cognitive forethought is out the door.
As a result, it would take an overwhelming majority of blue NO's to overcome the black yes's. We could end up with a tepid pay raise and more onerous work rules than the crap we now toil under.
I hope that the bomb tossers carry the day, but I fear the boot lickers will win grease up for another. For every post I read that gives me optimism, I go ballistic over the five that don't. And I'm sure that el hefe reads them as well.
Look at what DAL, SWA, UPS and FEDEX make. Hell, look at what JB makes! Too many of our group sell themselves short and are willing to rent their ATPs out for pennies on the dollar.
Nine Billion in the bank. Five Billion in ancillary revenues alone. We drive the machines that generate the cash.
United Continental Ranks High In Ancillary Revenue Collection | AVIATION WEEK
01-23-2012, 08:24 PM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 787 CA
Posts: 425
Yes or No?
Beg to differ. Having spoken to a number of furloughees, returning and otherwise, about half felt that they were sacrificed so the senior guys could keep their reitirement. In fact the "thrown under the bus" phrase I used was a quote from a friend who was furloughed and moved on to greener Southwest pastures. Not saying everyone feels this way, just pointing out your assumption isn't entirely accurate.
Beg to differ. Having spoken to a number of furloughees, returning and otherwise, about half felt that they were sacrificed so the senior guys could keep their reitirement. In fact the "thrown under the bus" phrase I used was a quote from a friend who was furloughed and moved on to greener Southwest pastures. Not saying everyone feels this way, just pointing out your assumption isn't entirely accurate.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Rotorhead
Major
16
06-19-2008 06:27 AM
