TA Extension Passed
#141
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
Currently, he goes by AllenAlert.
#142
It's sad that the amateurs at the top of CALAPLA actually thought that they were "fighting" for their pilots by their actions despite the fact that their economic shenanigans were all worthless as they occurred after the effective date of the merger. (Specifically, certain pay band groupings and LOA 25.)
And here we are in 2016 finally cleaning up the mess that had ZERO effect on the SLI and has caused enormous harm and disunity to the entire group.
That's what's wrong.
(We should all keep this in mind for the next inevitable (IMHO) merger.)
Last edited by cadetdrivr; 01-23-2016 at 11:37 AM.
#143
UCH Pilot
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: 787
Posts: 776
So for whatever that's worth.
#144
**
Council 5 (NYC)
Participation: 88%
In Favor: 74.6%
Council 11 (DCA)
Participation: 89%
In Favor: 78.9%
Council 12 (ORD)
Participation: 92%
In Favor: 73.2%
Council 33 (DEN)
Participation: 91%
In Favor: 85.9%
Council 34 (SFO)
Participation: 89%
In Favor: 79.9%
Council 57 (LAX)
Participation: 89%
In Favor: 73.4%
Council 93 (DENTK)
Participation: 91%
In Favor: 96.4%
Council 171 (IAH)
Participation: 86%
In Favor: 83.5%
Council 172 (CLE)
Participation: 86%
In Favor: 81.1%
Council 173 (GUM)
Participation: 86%
In Favor: 73.5%
Council 178 (IAHTC)
Participation: 91%
In Favor: 95.1%
Total
Participation: 90.94%
In Favor: 79%
Council 5 (NYC)
Participation: 88%
In Favor: 74.6%
Council 11 (DCA)
Participation: 89%
In Favor: 78.9%
Council 12 (ORD)
Participation: 92%
In Favor: 73.2%
Council 33 (DEN)
Participation: 91%
In Favor: 85.9%
Council 34 (SFO)
Participation: 89%
In Favor: 79.9%
Council 57 (LAX)
Participation: 89%
In Favor: 73.4%
Council 93 (DENTK)
Participation: 91%
In Favor: 96.4%
Council 171 (IAH)
Participation: 86%
In Favor: 83.5%
Council 172 (CLE)
Participation: 86%
In Favor: 81.1%
Council 173 (GUM)
Participation: 86%
In Favor: 73.5%
Council 178 (IAHTC)
Participation: 91%
In Favor: 95.1%
Total
Participation: 90.94%
In Favor: 79%
Last edited by UAL T38 Phlyer; 01-23-2016 at 12:15 PM. Reason: TOU
#145
**
Council 5 (NYC)
Participation: 88%
In Favor: 74.6%
Council 11 (DCA)
Participation: 89%
In Favor: 78.9%
Council 12 (ORD)
Participation: 92%
In Favor: 73.2%
Council 33 (DEN)
Participation: 91%
In Favor: 85.9%
Council 34 (SFO)
Participation: 89%
In Favor: 79.9%
Council 57 (LAX)
Participation: 89%
In Favor: 73.4%
Council 93 (DENTK)
Participation: 91%
In Favor: 96.4%
Council 171 (IAH)
Participation: 86%
In Favor: 83.5%
Council 172 (CLE)
Participation: 86%
In Favor: 81.1%
Council 173 (GUM)
Participation: 86%
In Favor: 73.5%
Council 178 (IAHTC)
Participation: 91%
In Favor: 95.1%
Total
Participation: 90.94%
In Favor: 79%
Council 5 (NYC)
Participation: 88%
In Favor: 74.6%
Council 11 (DCA)
Participation: 89%
In Favor: 78.9%
Council 12 (ORD)
Participation: 92%
In Favor: 73.2%
Council 33 (DEN)
Participation: 91%
In Favor: 85.9%
Council 34 (SFO)
Participation: 89%
In Favor: 79.9%
Council 57 (LAX)
Participation: 89%
In Favor: 73.4%
Council 93 (DENTK)
Participation: 91%
In Favor: 96.4%
Council 171 (IAH)
Participation: 86%
In Favor: 83.5%
Council 172 (CLE)
Participation: 86%
In Favor: 81.1%
Council 173 (GUM)
Participation: 86%
In Favor: 73.5%
Council 178 (IAHTC)
Participation: 91%
In Favor: 95.1%
Total
Participation: 90.94%
In Favor: 79%
#146
(retired)
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: Old, retired, healthy, debt-free, liquid
Posts: 422
**
Council 5 (NYC)
Participation: 88%
In Favor: 74.6%
Council 11 (DCA)
Participation: 89%
In Favor: 78.9%
Council 12 (ORD)
Participation: 92%
In Favor: 73.2%
Council 33 (DEN)
Participation: 91%
In Favor: 85.9%
Council 34 (SFO)
Participation: 89%
In Favor: 79.9%
Council 57 (LAX)
Participation: 89%
In Favor: 73.4%
Council 93 (DENTK)
Participation: 91%
In Favor: 96.4%
Council 171 (IAH)
Participation: 86%
In Favor: 83.5%
Council 172 (CLE)
Participation: 86%
In Favor: 81.1%
Council 173 (GUM)
Participation: 86%
In Favor: 73.5%
Council 178 (IAHTC)
Participation: 91%
In Favor: 95.1%
Total
Participation: 90.94%
In Favor: 79%
Council 5 (NYC)
Participation: 88%
In Favor: 74.6%
Council 11 (DCA)
Participation: 89%
In Favor: 78.9%
Council 12 (ORD)
Participation: 92%
In Favor: 73.2%
Council 33 (DEN)
Participation: 91%
In Favor: 85.9%
Council 34 (SFO)
Participation: 89%
In Favor: 79.9%
Council 57 (LAX)
Participation: 89%
In Favor: 73.4%
Council 93 (DENTK)
Participation: 91%
In Favor: 96.4%
Council 171 (IAH)
Participation: 86%
In Favor: 83.5%
Council 172 (CLE)
Participation: 86%
In Favor: 81.1%
Council 173 (GUM)
Participation: 86%
In Favor: 73.5%
Council 178 (IAHTC)
Participation: 91%
In Favor: 95.1%
Total
Participation: 90.94%
In Favor: 79%
Clearly, there are a number of reps who attempted to "protect" pilots from making a decision themselves. That "protection" usually centers around their own personal preferences rather than membership preferences or data. Unfortunately, it has been that way for many years.
Congrats to all. Now get on with the business of continuing to improve and make United a great airline.
#147
Having done this a number of times in the past, this breakdown should tell council memberships a great deal about the people they have elected.
Clearly, there are a number of reps who attempted to "protect" pilots from making a decision themselves. That "protection" usually centers around their own personal preferences rather than membership preferences or data. Unfortunately, it has been that way for many years.
Congrats to all. Now get on with the business of continuing to improve and make United a great airline.
Clearly, there are a number of reps who attempted to "protect" pilots from making a decision themselves. That "protection" usually centers around their own personal preferences rather than membership preferences or data. Unfortunately, it has been that way for many years.
Congrats to all. Now get on with the business of continuing to improve and make United a great airline.
#149
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 737 Cap
Posts: 451
Funny thing: per the merger policy it's actually not the role of the MEC (or the MC) to "fight" for the SLI other than appointing a competent and autonomous merger committee to represent their pilots in the SLI.
It's sad that the amateurs at the top of CALAPLA actually thought that they were "fighting" for their pilots by their actions despite the fact that their economic shenanigans were all worthless as they occurred after the effective date of the merger. (Specifically, certain pay band groupings and LOA 25.)
And here we are in 2016 finally cleaning up the mess that had ZERO effect on the SLI and has caused enormous harm and disunity to the entire group.
That's what's wrong.
(We should all keep this in mind for the next inevitable (IMHO) merger.)
It's sad that the amateurs at the top of CALAPLA actually thought that they were "fighting" for their pilots by their actions despite the fact that their economic shenanigans were all worthless as they occurred after the effective date of the merger. (Specifically, certain pay band groupings and LOA 25.)
And here we are in 2016 finally cleaning up the mess that had ZERO effect on the SLI and has caused enormous harm and disunity to the entire group.
That's what's wrong.
(We should all keep this in mind for the next inevitable (IMHO) merger.)
svergin,
You have stated that you're happy that Ual parked a fleet and furloughed pilots because your sli outcome was enhanced. That you actually wrote that amazes me. Then you wonder why I think that the current pay banding was not only a horrible idea but also that it made our contract worse for everyone and did nothing to improve your position. You've clearly lost sight of the big picture on how badly calpa hurt our collective pilot group in those instances. That said, it passed, and we will all live with it.
I, on the other hand, am glad that calpa brought their gradeschool crayon drawing version of an sli to the table. It made for a better outcome for many of the lual furloughed pilots. Just a different perspective. Hopefully we can all get past this and unite. It just doesn't seem likely.
#150
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2012
Posts: 510
Agree. Well stated.
svergin,
You have stated that you're happy that Ual parked a fleet and furloughed pilots because your sli outcome was enhanced. That you actually wrote that amazes me. Then you wonder why I think that the current pay banding was not only a horrible idea but also that it made our contract worse for everyone and did nothing to improve your position. You've clearly lost sight of the big picture on how badly calpa hurt our collective pilot group in those instances. That said, it passed, and we will all live with it.
I, on the other hand, am glad that calpa brought their gradeschool crayon drawing version of an sli to the table. It made for a better outcome for many of the lual furloughed pilots. Just a different perspective. Hopefully we can all get past this and unite. It just doesn't seem likely.
svergin,
You have stated that you're happy that Ual parked a fleet and furloughed pilots because your sli outcome was enhanced. That you actually wrote that amazes me. Then you wonder why I think that the current pay banding was not only a horrible idea but also that it made our contract worse for everyone and did nothing to improve your position. You've clearly lost sight of the big picture on how badly calpa hurt our collective pilot group in those instances. That said, it passed, and we will all live with it.
I, on the other hand, am glad that calpa brought their gradeschool crayon drawing version of an sli to the table. It made for a better outcome for many of the lual furloughed pilots. Just a different perspective. Hopefully we can all get past this and unite. It just doesn't seem likely.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post