Originally Posted by
ChrisJT6
Ah...NO.
Lame excuses for not wanting to be apart of the future of fixing our union...Glenn and Mark found a way to help...CAL guys. Did you speak up when your rep spoke of his pleasure to drag this on forever?
Today...we contract way more 50 seaters than our competitors. I want a scope that protects our jobs as much as our competitors is competitive.
How many Committees are led by ex-Cal pilots? Glenn and Mark were elected in a base that is dominated with ex-cal types. Had l-UAL been the dominate vote they never would have been on the ballot.
You have some serious flawed logic when it comes to scope. " I want a scope that protects our jobs as much as our competitors is competitive." That is some genuine frontier gibberish. I think what you are trying and failing to say is that you want to protect jobs and make the company competitive.
First of all nobody told the company they needed to purchase those planes. The company screwed up by doing so, not the pilot group by refusing to allow larger planes in the past. By your logic all flying should be given away, just think how profitable they could be then. Or is it we should only give away the flying you no longer wish to do so that you can get a raise.
Secondly, if you are so concerned with being competitive, why not have us fly the planes at a rate that is competitive. At least it would be flown by pilots that have been trained by UAL, care about the UAL passengers and the well being of our company.
The company is coming for the 90-110 seaters next time. They have no intention of putting them on our property now because they know guys like you can be bought off. You are correct I voted NO. I will never vote yes for a contract that gives away scope or job protections.