Originally Posted by SEDPA

No, you didn't have any protections in your contract; CAL MEC agreed to the 90%, without delay; and agreed to let any of your excess pilots to be first in line for a job. We agreed to those provisions. You came to the merger without protections and 1437 pilots without a job. At MCD, every CAL pilot had a job or a recall letter in hand. AND yes, it did take your side THREE YEARS to finally realize that the WHOLE CAL PILOT group was not going to give in to the UAL demands ... Pierce was the "leader", but your fight was with the whole CAL pilot group. And your side had the weaker hand, I mean contract ... your ONLY OUT was a yes vote on anything ... thanks.



Please show me anything that links the CAL NC/MECs view on paybanding with the CAL MC's SLI strategy or proposal; did the same rep declare that we must have paybanding because it is our SLI strategy? Or perhaps it had everything to do with the CAL groups' belief that it was the right thing to do since 2002, including our 2007 opening position for 2008 contract negotiations. And the PS ... please ... more what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine also. I'm glad you will get more $$$, and ****ed that we missed the chance to use unity to benefit everyone.



So did the company only negotiated with one MEC?? Did the NC only have CAL reps on it?? Did the NMB only talk to CAL ALPA?? What a joke ... CAL stood it's ground, and now CAL caused the 3 year delay. And why oh why should post 2010 flying opportunities and seniority be shared?? If it should have been shared, then it WOULD HAVE BEEN SHARED ... possession is 9/10ths of the law, unless you are UAL, then its what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine also. Spare me the song and dance about one company, blah blah blah, making decisions blah blah blah ... your pre-merger contract didn't protect the "added" pilots and seniority, ours did. I really don't care what date is used by the arbs when they build thier award ... but I surely hope they won't let the UAL pilots steal what isn't thiers.

Originally Posted by Lerxst

Tester, Staller, whatever your Nom du jour is. You are the embodiment of forum inferiority. Man up and support your convictions under a single identity, or at least acknowledge you are that one guy that has to keep starting over cause he gets banned every few months.

Originally Posted by gettinbumped

You and I are clearly on different planets. No talking is going to change that. Moving on

Originally Posted by Lerxst

GB, I usually agree with most of what you write, but you cannot seriously believe el Jefe was going to sign a contract with us in 2010. Or 2011. Or early 2012. UCH was absolutely not in a position structurally nor technologically to need us operating under a JCBA. I know it makes a nice sound bite to say otherwise and cast blame on Pierce (he is deserving of some, but so is both MECs to varying degrees) but the company was not going to deal until they were ready to.

Originally Posted by Lerxst

Wait, do we get to bid these different planets. Will they be fenced? Are the female locals friendly with 3 breasts, or scary aliens like Predator? ;-)

Originally Posted by Tester

Don't know what you are talking about but it's about par for your side. Sitting on the sidelines and getting tired of watching you CAL guys beat up on the few UAL pilots that frequent this forum. You want to keep rehashing the past but fail to see what's in your future. After SLI we'll start combining LEC's and choosing a new MEC chairman. Want to bet which side of the house the CHAIRMAN will come from? Could be a rough road as some of the past is redone.

Originally Posted by gettinbumped

Actually, Lerxst, I DO think a JCBA was possible in 2010. Obviously there is no way to prove that one way or another, so it's just my speculation based on talks with my LEC reps, history if DAL, etc. It's merely my opinion, and it could be wildly wrong I acknowledge openly.

One thing I want to make clear... I do NOT merely blame Pierce for not getting us a contract in 2010. I squarely blame our MC at the time, Wendy Morse. Obstructing our legislative committee from hounding the DOJ before they approved the merger was a world class blunder in my opinion. I believe she personally cost us AT LEAST hundreds of millions in equity, and probably a shot at a quick contract. Every update before the DOJ approved the merge, negotiations were sailing. The DAY the DOJ approved it, the company backpedalled, stalled, and lied their way out of what they had already agreed to. The responsibility for that gets shared equally in my opinion by BOTH MC's.

Originally Posted by Lerxst

Just as long as he or she has been far removed from either sides ruling party, I don't care. New blood is needed. But appreciate your concern for our road, your timeout and resurrection has mellowed you a bit. Maybe you'll make it a little bit longer this time until your next inevitable forum banishment.

Originally Posted by gettinbumped

Nope. We didn't have any 90 seat airframes in our scope clause when they decided to park the guppy fleet in 2008. The Scope clause was set in 2003. There were no new RJ's added to replace the Guppies. That was a strategic decision by Tilton that went much deeper than the 70 seater