Response to Kravit
01-23-2012, 08:43 PM
#71
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Posts: 114
Yes, unfortunately it was voted in by about 77% of the membership. I voted no with the scope clause relaxation and lack of snap-backs being my main concerns. But to say it was "negotiated" is quite a stretch as labor had very little leverage in CH11 other than the threat of going nuclear and shutting it down. Our MC at the time was nowhere near the type of leader to make that happen, and I don't think the majority would have followed his lead even if he was. The saying "deer in the headlights" comes to mind.
What was the percentage vote in favor of your current concessionary contract, the one you guys ratified when CAL was not in BK?
What was the percentage vote in favor of your current concessionary contract, the one you guys ratified when CAL was not in BK?
01-23-2012, 09:25 PM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
01-23-2012, 09:51 PM
#75
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
...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.
What's not entirely accurate is the assumption that the current (second) furloughee's weren't let go to precipitate this merger. The first group of furloughees were tossed under the bus to save the pension which occurred long before the CAL merger. I know because I was one of them. We were used as chaff to save the pension, which most sane folks knew was gone shortly after USAirs, not to mention PanAms. There is a timeline here which bears fruit.
The pension was long gone by the time the 737s were parked and the current group was hosed. So, whoever said this has his facts skewed. This time they were hosed by the parking of 104 737s and half a dozen 747's to facilitate this merger.
01-23-2012, 10:32 PM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 787 CA
Posts: 425
What's not entirely accurate is the assumption that the current (second) furloughee's weren't let go to precipitate this merger. The first group of furloughees were tossed under the bus to save the pension which occurred long before the CAL merger. I know because I was one of them. We were used as chaff to save the pension, which most sane folks knew was gone shortly after USAirs, not to mention PanAms. There is a timeline here which bears fruit.
The pension was long gone by the time the 737s were parked and the current group was hosed. So, whoever said this has his facts skewed. This time they were hosed by the parking of 104 737s and half a dozen 747's to facilitate this merger.
The pension was long gone by the time the 737s were parked and the current group was hosed. So, whoever said this has his facts skewed. This time they were hosed by the parking of 104 737s and half a dozen 747's to facilitate this merger.
01-23-2012, 10:41 PM
#77
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 787 CA
Posts: 425
I believe it was 42-58. Pathetically, I remember being somewhat proud that our pilot group had the narrowest margin for approval of a concessionary agreement of any of the majors at that time. It's still a pretty big strike against you around here if you were a 58%er, particularly for someone seeking a union position. And, yes I think Pierce was a 58%er, but all I can tell you for sure is that I wasn't...
01-23-2012, 10:47 PM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 787 CA
Posts: 425
Just to add to that; there was a HUGE camapign by ALPA to ratify POS 02 funded by none other than ALPA National. Post cards and CD's were sent out promoting a contract that still had blank sections. I thought it was a monumental breech of trust and neutrality on the part of National.
01-24-2012, 05:09 AM
#79
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
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.
I think your memory of our recent past is a bit skewed. There never was a BK 1113c process. We didn't have the balls to go the distance. We caved into all of their demands and threats, helped along by our ALPO reps backing up those threats, and over 75% voted yes to give it all away. Consensually.
We deserve everything we got.
"If you are unwilling to lose everything, eventually, you will."
01-24-2012, 07:26 AM
#80
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Unqalified
Posts: 93
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.
The Guppies were specifically parked ("they're too expensive" red-herring) to facilitate DOJ "buy-in" to prevent any potential disapproval of United's new/shiny dance partner, if/when said entity was announced...CAL being the logical fit. The parking of these airframes put 1437 dudes/dudettes on the street during furlough part-deux...just the facts.
Just the 2 cents of a guy who has also moved on to "greener" pastures during both of my furlough "stints", and has no agenda nor axe to grind...I simply have the desire to preserve an accurate historical perspective of what actually occurred and why.
Cheers,
Horhay
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Rotorhead
Major
16
06-19-2008 06:27 AM
