Where are the April bids for FOs?
03-21-2014, 10:08 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,725
Unless you were an LCAL guy you were forced to vote yes due to Jay Peirce and his BS!! Thanks JP, how'd that ISL positioning work out for you anyway?
03-21-2014, 11:40 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 419
What possibly does the failed IT decisions from our current LCAL management have with the JCBA...give it a rest and join the fight.
03-22-2014, 05:35 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,083
Look, Hoss, I really don't care how anyone voted. Hopefully a pilot made an honest assessment of the contract and balanced what they thought was best for them and the pilot group (not always the same, especially as you gain seniority) and clicked the appropriate box. I get a kick out of pilots who, when anything negative in the contract comes up, thump their chests and proclaim "I told you so." Get over it, no contract in history was without its negatives. I also do a face palm when a pilot blames someone else for their yes vote. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Inform yourself and own your vote. In the long run you might be right, you might be wrong (been there myself), but don't blame anyone else.
Which brings us to scope. The reason so many LUAL pilots said they felt pressure to vote yes and relatively few LCAL pilots felt that same pressure was because of UALALPA's inadequate scope protections. There is no more important clause in the contract. Work rules and pay don't matter if you're unemployed. That's not a comment on the voting breakdown, it's essentially a mathematical impossibility the contract didn't have a majority of yes votes on both the LCAL and LUAL sides... it's just reality. Can we finally move on?
03-22-2014, 06:13 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,085
Do you really think going forward, whether CAL merged or not, that your 50 seat RJ scope would have survived? At the very least, how many unlimited Q400s would have wound up in the system? The bottom line is that with an uncompetitive feed vs. the rest of the industry, Smisek would have altered that dynamic one way or another. The result would have been larger RJs at CAL just like DAL, UAL, AAL, US, and so on. Contractual provisions never shield any of us from economic reality in the long run.
03-22-2014, 06:40 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,083
At the very least, how many unlimited Q400s would have wound up in the system?
The bottom line is that with an uncompetitive feed vs. the rest of the industry, Smisek would have altered that dynamic one way or another. The result would have been larger RJs at CAL just like DAL, UAL, AAL, US, and so on.
Contractual provisions never shield any of us from economic reality in the long run.
03-22-2014, 06:59 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Let me make sure I've got this right. A LUAL pilot who voted yes was forced to by Jay Pierce and CALALPA. A LCAL pilot who voted yes was a coward. A LUAL pilot who voted no was making a heroic stand on principle. A LCAL pilot who voted no was stabbing his LUAL brethren in the back. Does that pretty much sum it up?
Look, Hoss, I really don't care how anyone voted. Hopefully a pilot made an honest assessment of the contract and balanced what they thought was best for them and the pilot group (not always the same, especially as you gain seniority) and clicked the appropriate box. I get a kick out of pilots who, when anything negative in the contract comes up, thump their chests and proclaim "I told you so." Get over it, no contract in history was without its negatives. I also do a face palm when a pilot blames someone else for their yes vote. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Inform yourself and own your vote. In the long run you might be right, you might be wrong (been there myself), but don't blame anyone else.
Which brings us to scope. The reason so many LUAL pilots said they felt pressure to vote yes and relatively few LCAL pilots felt that same pressure was because of UALALPA's inadequate scope protections. There is no more important clause in the contract. Work rules and pay don't matter if you're unemployed. That's not a comment on the voting breakdown, it's essentially a mathematical impossibility the contract didn't have a majority of yes votes on both the LCAL and LUAL sides... it's just reality. Can we finally move on?
Look, Hoss, I really don't care how anyone voted. Hopefully a pilot made an honest assessment of the contract and balanced what they thought was best for them and the pilot group (not always the same, especially as you gain seniority) and clicked the appropriate box. I get a kick out of pilots who, when anything negative in the contract comes up, thump their chests and proclaim "I told you so." Get over it, no contract in history was without its negatives. I also do a face palm when a pilot blames someone else for their yes vote. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Inform yourself and own your vote. In the long run you might be right, you might be wrong (been there myself), but don't blame anyone else.
Which brings us to scope. The reason so many LUAL pilots said they felt pressure to vote yes and relatively few LCAL pilots felt that same pressure was because of UALALPA's inadequate scope protections. There is no more important clause in the contract. Work rules and pay don't matter if you're unemployed. That's not a comment on the voting breakdown, it's essentially a mathematical impossibility the contract didn't have a majority of yes votes on both the LCAL and LUAL sides... it's just reality. Can we finally move on?
Sled
03-22-2014, 07:10 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 362
Everyone could NOT believe that:
1) Global reserves could get any non-HDO day off rolled for a Global trip.
2) That we want from 8 immovable days ( having to be bid in two groups 6-2, 3-5, 4-4) to 6, and that had to be in block ( lost two immovable days off a month).
3) Didn't understand that Overall Solution Constraints in PBS would award pilots junior to them the trips they wanted.
4) Didn't understand that the new three cycle vacation system would be detrimental to people with many vacation days available to bid.
5) Thought that pay rates not keeping up with basic inflation since 2005 was working the same for less "real" money.
6) Were "shocked" at the flexibility that even junior pilots had with bad day worst day trading flexibility to get the days off that they wanted, and worked when they wanted to work, when PBS dealt them a losing hand.
The list goes on and on.
All have been very nice guys, but when I list just some of the above, they're usual response is,
"Wow, I didn't know that was in there".
03-22-2014, 08:13 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Yes.
Everyone could NOT believe that:
1) Global reserves could get any non-HDO day off rolled for a Global trip.
2) That we want from 8 immovable days ( having to be bid in two groups 6-2, 3-5, 4-4) to 6, and that had to be in block ( lost two immovable days off a month).
3) Didn't understand that Overall Solution Constraints in PBS would award pilots junior to them the trips they wanted.
4) Didn't understand that the new three cycle vacation system would be detrimental to people with many vacation days available to bid.
5) Thought that pay rates not keeping up with basic inflation since 2005 was working the same for less "real" money.
6) Were "shocked" at the flexibility that even junior pilots had with bad day worst day trading flexibility to get the days off that they wanted, and worked when they wanted to work, when PBS dealt them a losing hand.
The list goes on and on.
All have been very nice guys, but when I list just some of the above, they're usual response is,
"Wow, I didn't know that was in there".
Everyone could NOT believe that:
1) Global reserves could get any non-HDO day off rolled for a Global trip.
2) That we want from 8 immovable days ( having to be bid in two groups 6-2, 3-5, 4-4) to 6, and that had to be in block ( lost two immovable days off a month).
3) Didn't understand that Overall Solution Constraints in PBS would award pilots junior to them the trips they wanted.
4) Didn't understand that the new three cycle vacation system would be detrimental to people with many vacation days available to bid.
5) Thought that pay rates not keeping up with basic inflation since 2005 was working the same for less "real" money.
6) Were "shocked" at the flexibility that even junior pilots had with bad day worst day trading flexibility to get the days off that they wanted, and worked when they wanted to work, when PBS dealt them a losing hand.
The list goes on and on.
All have been very nice guys, but when I list just some of the above, they're usual response is,
"Wow, I didn't know that was in there".
- 12:45 between reserve trips, except when they assign a new one before you block in.
- Can't be assigned into an HDO but can be REassigned into one.
- FC DH to cover flying from another base except it must be the whole trip, or start of trip, or any part of trip, depending on who answers phone.
- FSB was an endangered species but it's been saved.
- FIFO, except by silo and there are so many silos you're the only one in it.
- Can only add onto an assignment once but that once takes you to six days.
- 200% SRM would make them staff the airline properly--now with $40k per month pilots.
Last edited by APC225; 03-22-2014 at 08:23 AM.
03-22-2014, 08:46 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,725
The explosion of Captain upgrades by LCAL pilots in ORD, DEN, and LAX....facilitated exclusively by the merger....GUARANTEED that the contract would pass. Especially in light of the fact that it was CAL management running the show. We all remember Eastern. But whatever, it's done. The SLI is done. You're right...time to move on.
Sled
Sled
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
