View Poll Results: What say you?
Yes
214
72.30%
No
82
27.70%
Voters: 296. You may not vote on this poll
Extension TA Poll
12-27-2015, 09:12 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
The UAL pilots forum has over 500 votes cast with 53% voting no, 47% yes.
So, its not that hard to find no voters.
Overall, I've also found more cogent arguments (from both sides) on that forum as well.
So, its not that hard to find no voters.
Overall, I've also found more cogent arguments (from both sides) on that forum as well.
12-27-2015, 09:15 AM
#22
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Which if it passes by a large margin is exactly why the politics on the MEC is so toxic. If the MEC roll call is 50.1% and the actual pilots vote it in by 75%, then is the MEC REALLY doing what the pilots are saying they want done?? My reps both voted no and in a statement said that one of the reasons why is that the TA didn't follow MEC direction because there were no reserve changes and the NC and MC (wisely if you ask me) decoupled the New Narrowbody discussion from the agreement to avoid the shiny jet syndrome. So the question I will pose to them is if the majority of pilots in your council vote FOR the deal and you both voted against, are YOU following COUNCIL direction? I think not. We will see when the final vote is tallied.
As I've said before, I hate the way the MEC does business. 2 pilots speak for 1500 with no effective way to guage the pulse of their constituents. 20 pilots choose the MC. Hate the methodology
As I've said before, I hate the way the MEC does business. 2 pilots speak for 1500 with no effective way to guage the pulse of their constituents. 20 pilots choose the MC. Hate the methodology
12-27-2015, 09:16 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Position: B777 CA
Posts: 753
Which if it passes by a large margin is exactly why the politics on the MEC is so toxic. If the MEC roll call is 50.1% and the actual pilots vote it in by 75%, then is the MEC REALLY doing what the pilots are saying they want done?? My reps both voted no and in a statement said that one of the reasons why is that the TA didn't follow MEC direction because there were no reserve changes and the NC and MC (wisely if you ask me) decoupled the New Narrowbody discussion from the agreement to avoid the shiny jet syndrome. So the question I will pose to them is if the majority of pilots in your council vote FOR the deal and you both voted against, are YOU following COUNCIL direction? I think not. We will see when the final vote is tallied.
As I've said before, I hate the way the MEC does business. 2 pilots speak for 1500 with no effective way to guage the pulse of their constituents. 20 pilots choose the MC. Hate the methodology
As I've said before, I hate the way the MEC does business. 2 pilots speak for 1500 with no effective way to guage the pulse of their constituents. 20 pilots choose the MC. Hate the methodology
The two ORD reps voted No first based first on the fact they don't want Heppner going out the door with a win. This goes back to politics over support and bad blood of Wendy Morse vs Heppner and this is pay back.
I absolutely hate MEC politics it's supposed to be about the best interested of 12000 plus United pilots period!
12-27-2015, 09:25 AM
#24
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Maybe we should offer an invitation to all APC members to vote on the issue.
12-27-2015, 09:45 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Position: B777 CA
Posts: 753
Forums in general are not very accurate for polling. Mostly because those that participate in many ways are more of the militant fringe. Yes on this forum other pilots and non pilots can influence the poll. Also in general I find peer pressure causes many to beat their chests in public, but when actually voting influences from family and the privacy of voting cause many pilots to vote opposite what they pontificate in public.
12-27-2015, 10:10 AM
#27
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Position: next to chronic complainers...
Posts: 364
You must be one of the ones not paying attention when 2012 passed. JH beat the team of JP/Smisek to stop the carnage at the pilot seniority. So, don't try to turn it into a LCAL vs LUAL contest. The people at the bottom of the seniority list suffer the most by a poor contract. The starting point of LUAL contract, regardless of the lack of a money get, was a good deal for the logical thinking pilots. And, that is why it was voted in by both LCAL and LUAL majority.
I kinda feel sorry for guys that haven't taken the time to understand the real issues and follow the shills on APC. As they say, "you can't fix stupid". I have a feeling the locgical thinking United pilots will come to the forefront and vote "NO" to a piecemeal approach of negotiating our contracts.
I kinda feel sorry for guys that haven't taken the time to understand the real issues and follow the shills on APC. As they say, "you can't fix stupid". I have a feeling the locgical thinking United pilots will come to the forefront and vote "NO" to a piecemeal approach of negotiating our contracts.
OR
Vote YES, get some $$$ and DAL snap up, and other pay benefit for extending duty, pay and vacation for double furlough, potentially creating more vacancies to cover flying created by those pilots with increased vacation, and still have the same highly regarded "QOL" work rules from 2012 UPA?
Simple:
NO vote...... 2012 UPA no change for at least 12 months (more like 24 months)
Yes vote...... 2012 UPA + more $$$, + potential more $$$ w/ DAL Sup, + vacation; more $$$ for double furloughs, + more $$$ for extensions.
NO (UPA2012 0$ )
... < YES (UPA2012 +$+$+$+vacations) 
12-27-2015, 10:21 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 695
Maybe there's a time and place to consider either depending on the specifics of the situation.
12-27-2015, 10:25 AM
#29
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Position: next to chronic complainers...
Posts: 364
12-27-2015, 10:48 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
