SEA Base Future
10-17-2014, 08:53 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Posts: 639
10-18-2014, 10:30 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Gets weekends off
Posts: 1,168
Never happen. I can forsee Alaska Airlines SLI presentation now.
1) Captains to be merged with Captains.
2) Jumbo doesn't appear in ALPA merger policy. "Pilot" is status and "airline" is category.
3) Pilots only want to fly 737s. (That's all Alaska has)
4) UAL is overstaffed because of all the bases, so we have "extra" pilots.
5) Pilots don't want to be trapped in Rome in a hotel room. They'd rather be trapped in Nome, in a hotel room.
6) "1-for-1" proposal, effectively stapling the bottom 11,000 UAL pilots to the bottom (Since Alaska only has 1,500 pilots) putting a CAL/UAL 1985 hire below their most recently hired pilot.
Either that or they would want 100% DOH.
1) Captains to be merged with Captains.
2) Jumbo doesn't appear in ALPA merger policy. "Pilot" is status and "airline" is category.
3) Pilots only want to fly 737s. (That's all Alaska has)
4) UAL is overstaffed because of all the bases, so we have "extra" pilots.
5) Pilots don't want to be trapped in Rome in a hotel room. They'd rather be trapped in Nome, in a hotel room.
6) "1-for-1" proposal, effectively stapling the bottom 11,000 UAL pilots to the bottom (Since Alaska only has 1,500 pilots) putting a CAL/UAL 1985 hire below their most recently hired pilot.
Either that or they would want 100% DOH.
10-18-2014, 11:45 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: B777 x2 furloughed from United
Posts: 180
10-18-2014, 01:30 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,244
Never happen. I can forsee Alaska Airlines SLI presentation now.
1) Captains to be merged with Captains.
2) Jumbo doesn't appear in ALPA merger policy. "Pilot" is status and "airline" is category.
3) Pilots only want to fly 737s. (That's all Alaska has)
4) UAL is overstaffed because of all the bases, so we have "extra" pilots.
5) Pilots don't want to be trapped in Rome in a hotel room. They'd rather be trapped in Nome, in a hotel room.
6) "1-for-1" proposal, effectively stapling the bottom 11,000 UAL pilots to the bottom (Since Alaska only has 1,500 pilots) putting a CAL/UAL 1985 hire below their most recently hired pilot.
Either that or they would want 100% DOH.
1) Captains to be merged with Captains.
2) Jumbo doesn't appear in ALPA merger policy. "Pilot" is status and "airline" is category.
3) Pilots only want to fly 737s. (That's all Alaska has)
4) UAL is overstaffed because of all the bases, so we have "extra" pilots.
5) Pilots don't want to be trapped in Rome in a hotel room. They'd rather be trapped in Nome, in a hotel room.
6) "1-for-1" proposal, effectively stapling the bottom 11,000 UAL pilots to the bottom (Since Alaska only has 1,500 pilots) putting a CAL/UAL 1985 hire below their most recently hired pilot.
Either that or they would want 100% DOH.
10-19-2014, 09:15 AM
#18
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Never happen. I can forsee Alaska Airlines SLI presentation now.
1) Captains to be merged with Captains.
2) Jumbo doesn't appear in ALPA merger policy. "Pilot" is status and "airline" is category.
3) Pilots only want to fly 737s. (That's all Alaska has)
4) UAL is overstaffed because of all the bases, so we have "extra" pilots.
5) Pilots don't want to be trapped in Rome in a hotel room. They'd rather be trapped in Nome, in a hotel room.
6) "1-for-1" proposal, effectively stapling the bottom 11,000 UAL pilots to the bottom (Since Alaska only has 1,500 pilots) putting a CAL/UAL 1985 hire below their most recently hired pilot.
Either that or they would want 100% DOH.
1) Captains to be merged with Captains.
2) Jumbo doesn't appear in ALPA merger policy. "Pilot" is status and "airline" is category.
3) Pilots only want to fly 737s. (That's all Alaska has)
4) UAL is overstaffed because of all the bases, so we have "extra" pilots.
5) Pilots don't want to be trapped in Rome in a hotel room. They'd rather be trapped in Nome, in a hotel room.
6) "1-for-1" proposal, effectively stapling the bottom 11,000 UAL pilots to the bottom (Since Alaska only has 1,500 pilots) putting a CAL/UAL 1985 hire below their most recently hired pilot.
Either that or they would want 100% DOH.
10-21-2014, 08:29 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Never happen. I can forsee Alaska Airlines SLI presentation now.
1) Captains to be merged with Captains.
2) Jumbo doesn't appear in ALPA merger policy. "Pilot" is status and "airline" is category.
3) Pilots only want to fly 737s. (That's all Alaska has)
4) UAL is overstaffed because of all the bases, so we have "extra" pilots.
5) Pilots don't want to be trapped in Rome in a hotel room. They'd rather be trapped in Nome, in a hotel room.
6) "1-for-1" proposal, effectively stapling the bottom 11,000 UAL pilots to the bottom (Since Alaska only has 1,500 pilots) putting a CAL/UAL 1985 hire below their most recently hired pilot.
Either that or they would want 100% DOH.
1) Captains to be merged with Captains.
2) Jumbo doesn't appear in ALPA merger policy. "Pilot" is status and "airline" is category.
3) Pilots only want to fly 737s. (That's all Alaska has)
4) UAL is overstaffed because of all the bases, so we have "extra" pilots.
5) Pilots don't want to be trapped in Rome in a hotel room. They'd rather be trapped in Nome, in a hotel room.
6) "1-for-1" proposal, effectively stapling the bottom 11,000 UAL pilots to the bottom (Since Alaska only has 1,500 pilots) putting a CAL/UAL 1985 hire below their most recently hired pilot.
Either that or they would want 100% DOH.
C'mon man, you know the arbs. would laugh and throw that out.....oh wait, I see what you did there.
10-23-2014, 11:26 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 133
Never happen. I can forsee Alaska Airlines SLI presentation now.
1) Captains to be merged with Captains.
2) Jumbo doesn't appear in ALPA merger policy. "Pilot" is status and "airline" is category.
3) Pilots only want to fly 737s. (That's all Alaska has)
4) UAL is overstaffed because of all the bases, so we have "extra" pilots.
5) Pilots don't want to be trapped in Rome in a hotel room. They'd rather be trapped in Nome, in a hotel room.
6) "1-for-1" proposal, effectively stapling the bottom 11,000 UAL pilots to the bottom (Since Alaska only has 1,500 pilots) putting a CAL/UAL 1985 hire below their most recently hired pilot.
Either that or they would want 100% DOH.
1) Captains to be merged with Captains.
2) Jumbo doesn't appear in ALPA merger policy. "Pilot" is status and "airline" is category.
3) Pilots only want to fly 737s. (That's all Alaska has)
4) UAL is overstaffed because of all the bases, so we have "extra" pilots.
5) Pilots don't want to be trapped in Rome in a hotel room. They'd rather be trapped in Nome, in a hotel room.
6) "1-for-1" proposal, effectively stapling the bottom 11,000 UAL pilots to the bottom (Since Alaska only has 1,500 pilots) putting a CAL/UAL 1985 hire below their most recently hired pilot.
Either that or they would want 100% DOH.
THAT right there is classic. Nice job with the linkages to other absurd proposals!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
