TA Extension Passed
01-24-2016, 03:52 AM
#162
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: 787 Capt.
Posts: 644
Damage done????
You know I always respected you because of the work you have done in the RC world (although I gave up Pattern Flying for racing Porsches), but that statement really brings everything into question. I suspect you are a genuine intellect so as such I wonder if you are open to an honest debate? I wish to convince you that you're mistaken, and I am open to the possibility that I am mistaken.
So, why is it you feel we alll "paid the price"?
Joe Peck
EWRFO
D.O.H. 4/1/96
Dartmouth '88 MBA/BSEE
born Csizmadia Joszef Andras
You know I always respected you because of the work you have done in the RC world (although I gave up Pattern Flying for racing Porsches), but that statement really brings everything into question. I suspect you are a genuine intellect so as such I wonder if you are open to an honest debate? I wish to convince you that you're mistaken, and I am open to the possibility that I am mistaken.
So, why is it you feel we alll "paid the price"?
Joe Peck
EWRFO
D.O.H. 4/1/96
Dartmouth '88 MBA/BSEE
born Csizmadia Joszef Andras
Nice resume. You must be proud.
01-24-2016, 03:59 AM
#163
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: B777 Capt
Posts: 844
There is nothing wrong with pay banding. But it's change. And pilots hate change. Remember when we were told that an actual passenger count was not necessary because the gate readers were more accurate? Holy ****e! How long did Captain's INSIST on an actual count. How many do now?? Yep. What about after 9-11, we changed sterile cockpit to 18k. Years later we changed it back to 10K...WOW, the backlash! Whole missives on the UAL forum about how "I am keeping 18K!!!!" How many do that now?? YEP. Pilots just need to chill. Go with the flow. Irie, mon. GOOSE-FRABA.
01-24-2016, 03:59 AM
#164
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
Joe, loa 25 existed for one reason... cal sli. It wasn't for the betterment if the ual pilot group. Yes, we all paid to undo it. It should have never happened. It happened because calpa was playing games. So maybe you're reading this wrong. I would gladly pay ten times what that cost to undo. It should have never happened.
Are we clear now?
Are we clear now?
01-24-2016, 04:14 AM
#165
Ben Salley
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Left
Posts: 924
-BS
01-24-2016, 05:16 AM
#166
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
Let's be honest for once. You voted no on the JCBA because you were worried it would pass. You and quite a few others were trying to do what LCAL's FAs have done successfully since the merger - keep the two pilot groups separate. LOA 25 was a scheme concocted by someone at LCAL that would surely kill any JCBA. Quite ingenious, really. One helluva poison pill.
You were all in favor of LOA 25. To characterize your opinion of it any other way is complete revisionist history. All of that's history now but you don't get to rewrite your part in it.
01-24-2016, 06:01 AM
#167
Ben Salley
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Left
Posts: 924
Ben, your 'recollection' of opposing LOA 25 directly contradicts mine. I had a phone conversation with you for more than an hour on the matter, explaining how badly it would screw double furloughees. You blew it off, telling me that I would get back a bunch of my furlough time after the SLI. I got exactly zero days of furlough credit after SLI because I already had more than five years of service and the LCAL pilot placed above me was hired in '09.
Let's be honest for once. You voted no on the JCBA because you were worried it would pass. You and quite a few others were trying to do what LCAL's FAs have done successfully since the merger - keep the two pilot groups separate. LOA 25 was a scheme concocted by someone at LCAL that would surely kill any JCBA. Quite ingenious, really. One helluva poison pill.
You were all in favor of LOA 25. To characterize your opinion of it any other way is complete revisionist history. All of that's history now but you don't get to rewrite your part in it.
Let's be honest for once. You voted no on the JCBA because you were worried it would pass. You and quite a few others were trying to do what LCAL's FAs have done successfully since the merger - keep the two pilot groups separate. LOA 25 was a scheme concocted by someone at LCAL that would surely kill any JCBA. Quite ingenious, really. One helluva poison pill.
You were all in favor of LOA 25. To characterize your opinion of it any other way is complete revisionist history. All of that's history now but you don't get to rewrite your part in it.
First of all, I don't know who you are. Secondly, I found out about LOA25 about 20 minutes before the vote. I certainly didn't have time to discuss this with you ,via telephone, during that time.
Lastly, I have no reason to lie. I objected to LOA 25 because it was wrong. I voted no because of the retro and lagging Delta. LOA 25 did not harm my Pilots per se, but I did feel that it hurt the profession. I am certain that I didn't speak to anyone o the phone between the time that LOA 25 was presented and the subsequent vote. The only part in LOA 25 I had was opposing it.
-Ben
01-24-2016, 06:12 AM
#168
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
Andy:
First of all, I don't know who you are. Secondly, I found out about LOA25 about 20 minutes before the vote. I certainly didn't have time to discuss this with you ,via telephone, during that time.
Lastly, I have no reason to lie. I objected to LOA 25 because it was wrong. I voted no because of the retro and lagging Delta. LOA 25 did not harm my Pilots per se, but I did feel that it hurt the profession. I am certain that I didn't speak to anyone o the phone between the time that LOA 25 was presented and the subsequent vote. The only part in LOA 25 I had was opposing it.
-Ben
First of all, I don't know who you are. Secondly, I found out about LOA25 about 20 minutes before the vote. I certainly didn't have time to discuss this with you ,via telephone, during that time.
Lastly, I have no reason to lie. I objected to LOA 25 because it was wrong. I voted no because of the retro and lagging Delta. LOA 25 did not harm my Pilots per se, but I did feel that it hurt the profession. I am certain that I didn't speak to anyone o the phone between the time that LOA 25 was presented and the subsequent vote. The only part in LOA 25 I had was opposing it.
-Ben
I was a 737 FO in council 171; you were one of my ALPA reps.
You had zero issues with LOA 25 when I spoke to you. I remember that conversation very well so don't act like you were opposed to LOA at the time it occurred. This is an item where it would be better for you to go silent because you were not opposed to LOA 25 at the time it mattered.
01-24-2016, 06:20 AM
#169
Ben Salley
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Left
Posts: 924
Ben,
I was a 737 FO in council 171; you were one of my ALPA reps.
You had zero issues with LOA 25 when I spoke to you. I remember that conversation very well so don't act like you were opposed to LOA at the time it occurred. This is an item where it would be better for you to go silent because you were not opposed to LOA 25 at the time it mattered.
I was a 737 FO in council 171; you were one of my ALPA reps.
You had zero issues with LOA 25 when I spoke to you. I remember that conversation very well so don't act like you were opposed to LOA at the time it occurred. This is an item where it would be better for you to go silent because you were not opposed to LOA 25 at the time it mattered.
-Ben
Thanks!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
