Profit Sharing Grievance
03-11-2014, 07:12 AM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 621
I believe the ones you speak of are ALPA members in good standing that never crossed a picket line. No job was stolen. In two years, this post isl imbalance will begin to level. I think it's time for you to move on.
03-11-2014, 07:28 AM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,007
Can't you guys accept negative criticism... even if it is true? To me that would be a sign of... maturity. Or should nothing be said and we still have to listen to how crappy the UAL guys are for 'doing this' to the CAL guys...
I believe the ones you speak of are ALPA members in good standing that never crossed a picket line. No job was stolen. In two years, this post isl imbalance will begin to level. I think it's time for you to move on.
The fact is the UAL guys are more engaged in union affairs and they will stay engaged... Don't be surprised if CAL apathy puts themselves in a place they don't want to be... I've given up on the 97 hires... they won't be around too long... The MEC (both CAL and UAL) are trying to get the 05-07 guys on board... so we can work together.. against... management....
But at some point, I will move on .... without them, if all they can talk about it is misinformation, lies, divisiveness and how they got screwed by UAL guys, which isn't true... at some point I'll stop trying to unify and if they don't represent themselves they will continue to screw themselves..
03-11-2014, 08:02 AM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: B777 CA - SFO
Posts: 730
Your amateur psych skills suck when you belittle the entire CAL group with words like "dollar hoes", "incompetence and ignorance", "expect them to be mature, reasonable agents"....
I get what you're saying, but the way you're (constantly) saying it turns the middle of the road folks off. You're posting history here is not one of of an interested objective reporter. You have been one of the most vocal and stridently pithy anti-cal broad-brushed painting posters since taking the CAL job position. While that has given you a unique insight into both operations, the incessant noise and subjective group condemnation overpowers the message.
We do need to come together, but posts like yours are not the way to do it.
I get what you're saying, but the way you're (constantly) saying it turns the middle of the road folks off. You're posting history here is not one of of an interested objective reporter. You have been one of the most vocal and stridently pithy anti-cal broad-brushed painting posters since taking the CAL job position. While that has given you a unique insight into both operations, the incessant noise and subjective group condemnation overpowers the message.
We do need to come together, but posts like yours are not the way to do it.
Last edited by Lerxst; 03-11-2014 at 08:35 AM.
03-11-2014, 08:26 AM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Gets weekends off
Posts: 1,168
I don't think its that.
The word I would use is "co-mingling".
That's what happened in 2010. The resources of each legacy started to become "co-mingled" at that time.
At that point, we should have had a single seniority list. But we didn't. It took three years, and during that time, the company made a decision to alter flying in a way that drastically and unproportionally shifted new flying to one side.
That gave a false sense of "seniority" and "growth" from 2010-2013. The arbitrators validated that.
Despite your beliefs, if someone is quoting their "2013 CAL list" position, relative percentage, or "what they could hold" its all a moot point. Lots of senior LCAL guys didn't take those upgrades, because they wanted to wait to see what was going to happen with SLI. 2006 hires getting guppy Captain positions in LAX, ORD, and DEN would have never happened with an integrated seniority list, and would have never happened without the merger. The pilots leaving EWR and IAH to take those new positions out west created what appeared to be growth in those bases, but it wasn't. Just backfilling of slots that wouldn't have been vacated without the merger.
I don't really know who the merger benefitted more, and I don't really care. I personally have no desire to ever be based in IAH, CLE, EWR, or GUM since each is over 1,000 miles from where I live. My base has had about 400 new pilots that weren't here previously come into it. All I care about is my base, and while others have had tremendous new opportunity here, I have not.
Once the assets because co-mingled, even though we had separate seniority lists, we should have shared in the benefits of the merger, but we didn't. Management made the decision to shift flying this way, and look at the mess they left for us to clean up.
The SLI just cleaned that up as best possible.
Anyway, that's my rant. Enjoy your day.
The word I would use is "co-mingling".
That's what happened in 2010. The resources of each legacy started to become "co-mingled" at that time.
At that point, we should have had a single seniority list. But we didn't. It took three years, and during that time, the company made a decision to alter flying in a way that drastically and unproportionally shifted new flying to one side.
That gave a false sense of "seniority" and "growth" from 2010-2013. The arbitrators validated that.
Despite your beliefs, if someone is quoting their "2013 CAL list" position, relative percentage, or "what they could hold" its all a moot point. Lots of senior LCAL guys didn't take those upgrades, because they wanted to wait to see what was going to happen with SLI. 2006 hires getting guppy Captain positions in LAX, ORD, and DEN would have never happened with an integrated seniority list, and would have never happened without the merger. The pilots leaving EWR and IAH to take those new positions out west created what appeared to be growth in those bases, but it wasn't. Just backfilling of slots that wouldn't have been vacated without the merger.
I don't really know who the merger benefitted more, and I don't really care. I personally have no desire to ever be based in IAH, CLE, EWR, or GUM since each is over 1,000 miles from where I live. My base has had about 400 new pilots that weren't here previously come into it. All I care about is my base, and while others have had tremendous new opportunity here, I have not.
Once the assets because co-mingled, even though we had separate seniority lists, we should have shared in the benefits of the merger, but we didn't. Management made the decision to shift flying this way, and look at the mess they left for us to clean up.
The SLI just cleaned that up as best possible.
Anyway, that's my rant. Enjoy your day.
03-11-2014, 09:31 AM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,007
Your amateur psych skills suck when you belittle the entire CAL group with words like "dollar hoes", "incompetence and ignorance", "expect them to be mature, reasonable agents"....
I get what you're saying, but the way you're (constantly) saying it turns the middle of the road folks off. You're posting history here is not one of of an interested objective reporter. You have been one of the most vocal and stridently pithy anti-cal broad-brushed painting posters since taking the CAL job position. While that has given you a unique insight into both operations, the incessant noise and subjective group condemnation overpowers the message.
We do need to come together, but posts like yours are not the way to do it.
I get what you're saying, but the way you're (constantly) saying it turns the middle of the road folks off. You're posting history here is not one of of an interested objective reporter. You have been one of the most vocal and stridently pithy anti-cal broad-brushed painting posters since taking the CAL job position. While that has given you a unique insight into both operations, the incessant noise and subjective group condemnation overpowers the message.
We do need to come together, but posts like yours are not the way to do it.
I've yet to see the middle of the road CAL guys be the voice of reason to the slick tie CAL types.... not gonna happen? Because when the UAL guys do it, it is divisive.
03-11-2014, 12:23 PM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: 747 Captain, retired
Posts: 928
Ok lCAL pilots, you got over on us with the profit sharing thing. rationalize it however you want but you got handed a bunch of money you were not contractually entitled - you got over. In the interest of unity, I am not responding to this thread again. Fraternally
03-11-2014, 08:49 PM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 194
The MEC (both CAL and UAL) are trying to get the 05-07 guys on board... so we can work together.. against... management....
Now this is interesting an statement. I'm one of these 05-07 guys that you mention.
I have a question...is there a management team on planet earth that LUAL would like to have? I don't know the history of United as well as many of you but I know you all didn't like your recent management. Who do you like? Will you ALWAYS hate management? I fly with guys who liked Gordon and some who didn't. But it seems you guys hated EVERYONE. Please tell me if I'm wrong because I genuinely don't know. Who was LUAL last great management team?
Now this is interesting an statement. I'm one of these 05-07 guys that you mention.
I have a question...is there a management team on planet earth that LUAL would like to have? I don't know the history of United as well as many of you but I know you all didn't like your recent management. Who do you like? Will you ALWAYS hate management? I fly with guys who liked Gordon and some who didn't. But it seems you guys hated EVERYONE. Please tell me if I'm wrong because I genuinely don't know. Who was LUAL last great management team?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
