|
Originally Posted by R57 relay
(Post 1474942)
This testimony, fool?
Scott Kirby publicly contradicted that an additional 10% was available. It's a fact that the cost of a JCBA went up after the Nicolau award came out. I'm sure we could have gotten a little better than Kirby, but I doubt enough to overcome the Nic. After the company saw how the Nic divided us, I really doubt it. Why would they? Then we have the FACT that you guys filed an unripe DFR while we were negotiating a contract........ |
Originally Posted by cactiboss
(Post 1474955)
Yes that testimonial, what did you expect Kirby to say? Isn't that how negotiations work? Management low balls and we ask for the moon. You believe the Kirby was etched in stone? The Kirby was the company's first "proposal" and as you see by the testimony it wasn't going to fly with either MEC. As usual the beasties took a lower offer than even the company wanted and volunteered to work for $30 less than the Kirby "proposal".
It was not the first proposal. It was the first comprehensive proposal. We had been negotiating for nearly two years and if they company had not been dragging it's feet and we had a joint contract ahead of the Nic, then the rest of this would have been history. What are you talking about "took a lower offer...?" We stayed with what we have because of the absence of a JCBA and the TA. Quit why you are behind. WD will be along in a minute to explain what you really meant. |
Originally Posted by R57 relay
(Post 1474904)
Couple of issues with this post eagle, if you are referring to me.
I never said that the Nic was not the primary reason for the foundation of USAPA. It was. What I said was the many that voted for USAPA voted for them for reasons other than the Nic. Many of the guys that voted for USAPA really weren't hurt by the Nic and have lost with USAPA's election. And the "TA we tore up" was no where as good or better than the TA. The Kirby proposal was an abomination. You really need to do some research. http://www.unbiasedfacts.org/USAPAsU...terNov2010.pdf At least we agree on the fact USAPA would have never been born or slapped on the ass by the overwhelming majority of East pilots if it weren't for the Nic and that was my point. Thus the Nic was why USAPA was founded and circumventing an arbitration result East pilots agreed to (actually forced) was the goal. So simple a caveman can understand that..........no "research" needed. |
Originally Posted by eaglefly
(Post 1474963)
Nice tap dance. Fred Astaire would be proud. How many is "many" ?
At least we agree on the fact USAPA would have never been born or slapped on the ass by the overwhelming majority of East pilots if it weren't for the Nic and that was my point. Thus the Nic was why USAPA was founded and circumventing an arbitration result East pilots agreed to (actually forced) was the goal. So simple a caveman can understand that..........no "research" needed. |
Originally Posted by R57 relay
(Post 1474958)
Good Lord man, can you even find your airplane without help?
It was not the first proposal. It was the first comprehensive proposal. What are you talking about "took a lower offer...?" . |
Originally Posted by R57 relay
(Post 1474902)
...............
Umm, I have a file on my computer that says "Kirby Proposal." Date of signing A320 C/O was $146.10, TOS. 4 years later it was $152.05. That on top of the gutting of scope, no min fleet and no raise on the E190. The then ALPA merger policy outline might have been followed, but it's objectives were not. R57 relay is offline Reply With Quote. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but The "then" ALPA merger policy is the same as the "now" merger policy. And the policy was , and is, designed to meet it's "objectives"....you can try and spin it any way you want, but in the end you gave your word, and then didn't honor your word. No more, no less. |
Originally Posted by Gomerglideslope
(Post 1475008)
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but The "then" ALPA merger policy is the same as the "now" merger policy. And the policy was , and is, designed to meet it's "objectives"....you can try and spin it any way you want, but in the end you gave your word, and then didn't honor your word. No more, no less.
|
Originally Posted by flybywire44
(Post 1474367)
I would think the next generation of regional pilots to go to the majors would been keen to not be represented by the union that failed to stop regional outsourcing.
|
Originally Posted by eaglefly
(Post 1475014)
Apparently spins and twirls seem to be the mark of a USAPA twinkle toes on just about everything. :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by R57 relay
(Post 1474974)
Well Ginger, with my knowledge of MY pilot group, I'd say enough that had they voted for ALPA then USAPA wouldn't be mentioned today. Maybe you need to do some research, or just pay attention to what is actually written.
WD at AWA |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:27 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands