Houston, you have a problem?
05-22-2015, 03:43 AM
#102
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05
If the SLI had actually followed ALPA merger policy and was fair and equitable then we wouldn't have this problem.
05-22-2015, 03:46 AM
#103
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by Birddog
If they have vacancies in the next 24 months they should be filled per UPA Section 8.
If they have flying return to IAH in the next 24 months those positions should be filled per the C-171 resolution.
That's how MOU 14 worked.
If they have flying return to IAH in the next 24 months those positions should be filled per the C-171 resolution.
That's how MOU 14 worked.
As I mentioned above, 24 month grandfather rights will ENCOURAGE more bumps in the future if passed. But I'm guessing C171 doesn't care as long as the bumps aren't in their domicile. Ladder up!
05-22-2015, 05:06 AM
#104
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: IAH 320 CA
Posts: 190
Once again, you ignore the point.
The MOU came AFTER the company admitted they screwed up and never should have closed the ORD 747.
You can't equate that to PREEMPTIVELY protecting seats lost to a normal displacement.
If the company would come back later and say, "hey, we screwed up and never should have displaced".......then by all means, carve away.
You ignore the point to fit your "out to get us L-CAL pilots" conspiracy.
The MOU came AFTER the company admitted they screwed up and never should have closed the ORD 747.
You can't equate that to PREEMPTIVELY protecting seats lost to a normal displacement.
If the company would come back later and say, "hey, we screwed up and never should have displaced".......then by all means, carve away.
You ignore the point to fit your "out to get us L-CAL pilots" conspiracy.
05-22-2015, 05:28 AM
#105
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 737 fo
Posts: 908
Originally Posted by Flyguppy
Once again, you ignore the point.
The MOU came AFTER the company admitted they screwed up and never should have closed the ORD 747.
You can't equate that to PREEMPTIVELY protecting seats lost to a normal displacement.
If the company would come back later and say, "hey, we screwed up and never should have displaced".......then by all means, carve away.
You ignore the point to fit your "out to get us L-CAL pilots" conspiracy.
The MOU came AFTER the company admitted they screwed up and never should have closed the ORD 747.
You can't equate that to PREEMPTIVELY protecting seats lost to a normal displacement.
If the company would come back later and say, "hey, we screwed up and never should have displaced".......then by all means, carve away.
You ignore the point to fit your "out to get us L-CAL pilots" conspiracy.
05-22-2015, 07:33 AM
#106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 737 Cap
Posts: 451
Originally Posted by sleeves
No I am not ignoring that point. Once again the contract gives time, 120 days for these situations. These pilots were given a special carve out.
So, with that said, what is the angle on the IAH deal from a union perspective. Posturing? Can it pass the MEC? Probably not, but it does make for good talking points. The reality is that the company is going to act like a business. If it is in their best interest to agree to what 171 (really, the MEC) has proposed, they will. Lots of gates to pass before this becomes something real.
Scott
05-22-2015, 07:56 AM
#107
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,708
Originally Posted by Scott Stoops
So first of all, the pilots weren't given anything. The company had to agree to it, meaning they had a choice. If anyone honestly thinks that the company is just throwing out handouts, then they haven't been paying attention. There was clearly a financial incentive to the outcome. There always is.
So, with that said, what is the angle on the IAH deal from a union perspective. Posturing? Can it pass the MEC? Probably not, but it does make for good talking points. The reality is that the company is going to act like a business. If it is in their best interest to agree to what 171 (really, the MEC) has proposed, they will. Lots of gates to pass before this becomes something real.
Scott
So, with that said, what is the angle on the IAH deal from a union perspective. Posturing? Can it pass the MEC? Probably not, but it does make for good talking points. The reality is that the company is going to act like a business. If it is in their best interest to agree to what 171 (really, the MEC) has proposed, they will. Lots of gates to pass before this becomes something real.
Scott
End of story.
05-22-2015, 09:37 AM
#108
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 737 fo
Posts: 908
Originally Posted by Scott Stoops
So first of all, the pilots weren't given anything. The company had to agree to it, meaning they had a choice. If anyone honestly thinks that the company is just throwing out handouts, then they haven't been paying attention. There was clearly a financial incentive to the outcome. There always is.
So, with that said, what is the angle on the IAH deal from a union perspective. Posturing? Can it pass the MEC? Probably not, but it does make for good talking points. The reality is that the company is going to act like a business. If it is in their best interest to agree to what 171 (really, the MEC) has proposed, they will. Lots of gates to pass before this becomes something real.
Scott
So, with that said, what is the angle on the IAH deal from a union perspective. Posturing? Can it pass the MEC? Probably not, but it does make for good talking points. The reality is that the company is going to act like a business. If it is in their best interest to agree to what 171 (really, the MEC) has proposed, they will. Lots of gates to pass before this becomes something real.
Scott
I do not really care if this passes or not. I just find it quite hypocritical.
05-22-2015, 10:00 AM
#109
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Gets weekends off
Posts: 1,168
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
What does the SLI have to do with this debate? Since you decided to bring it up, can you please explain how the LCAL proposal followed ALPA merger policy but the LUAL proposal did not?
Last edited by pilot64golfer; 05-22-2015 at 10:27 AM.
05-23-2015, 12:18 AM
#110
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 239
Originally Posted by sleeves
Ok so the 747 guys were given,or we paid as a group, for a special carve out. Something I am sure will not be afforded to the IAH Pilots.
I do not really care if this passes or not. I just find it quite hypocritical.
I do not really care if this passes or not. I just find it quite hypocritical.
Everybody understood that it made sense in this HIGHLY unusual occurrence. When has ANY company reopened a fleet in a base a year after closing it?
Never mind the fact they lost a HUGE amount of high value customers to Cathay in the process. They irreparably damaged a large amount of UA's revenue stream and realized it,but only after the damage was done.
Punative closure anyone?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Chris
Flight Schools and Training
14
12-21-2008 03:08 AM
