September Bump
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: 73 CA EWR
Posts: 514
Lmao, you really are naive.
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
#33
SLI best wishes!
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: B767 Capt
Posts: 399
Still in "remedy" negotiations. Look for a contract tweek vs cash. That according to C33 officer in the meeting yesterday. The same C33 officer who laughed when asked if the "list already out" rumor was true. For the record, (and on the record) he denied the SLI list rumor.
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Sled
#35
I can see Heppner letting that happen. I guess the continued rumor that UAL MEC are a bunch of Boy Scouts is true.
How can they justify sharing. For the guys that were affected and only a few years to go till retirement there is no way a contract improvement will compensate them.
How can they justify sharing. For the guys that were affected and only a few years to go till retirement there is no way a contract improvement will compensate them.
Those guys got their compensation by flying the top equipment for 5 extra years that none of the rest of us will not experience. That is, until the retirement age gets changed again....
#36
Yes, there will be a temporary downsizing of the 757 base in SFO. However, once ISL is complete, there is a lot of CO 757 flying in SFO that really needs a base. This flying will shift to the combined list, and I bet that the 757 flying in SFO will stabilize after we fly each other's planes. Might take a while, but I'd bet the number of positions will end up about the same as today.
#37
I think that's what I'm gonna like about working with the LUAL guys, you guys can put a positive spin on anything like parking mainline aircraft and adding rj's is a good thing for career expectations. I like working with upbeat people.
#40
But the UAL side didn't try to make that stretch. They brought it up as reference. I'd be SHOCKED to see the arbitrators not mention that in their decision.
Actually, in NWA/DAL the statement "mergers do not happen in a vacuum" was used to explain why Katz proposal wasn't valid compared to Freund, who won that integration.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post