Single Carrier Finding
09-16-2014, 12:03 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: Pitot heat, what's to eat?
Posts: 392
Originally Posted by morecowbell
There's not a West guy/gal out there that's delusional enough to think the APA is a champion of the West.
I think you mistaken the fact that the west recognizes the positive differences between the APA and USAPA.
Any union is better then the Scabs of USAPA.
The 2005 west hire was only put on par with a "furloughed at time of merger east pilot"....wouldn't expect the same here. Not many people would. ONLY a disgruntled easthole or a disillusion "Stephanie Knuckles" type 3rd lister would go on like you do. Which are you again??
I think you mistaken the fact that the west recognizes the positive differences between the APA and USAPA.
Any union is better then the Scabs of USAPA.
The 2005 west hire was only put on par with a "furloughed at time of merger east pilot"....wouldn't expect the same here. Not many people would. ONLY a disgruntled easthole or a disillusion "Stephanie Knuckles" type 3rd lister would go on like you do. Which are you again??
If that list is then merged with AA using relative position and no bump no flush then that puts a 2005 West hire equal to an AA 737 Captain. I believe (though I'd have to look it up to be sure) that that's around the mid 90's hire date.
Do you think this is an outcome APA will push for? Guys who would have retired as top ten on the seniority list now would retire as number 700 due to the influx of younger guys more senior than them. Your attempt to deflect the conversation with comical personal insults doesn't change the basic facts of the situation. To be honest, I don't think it's entirely up to the APA, I suspect it's going to arbitration. But I wouldn't be so sure that the APA's motivation in the SLI dispute is going to be all that terribly different than USAPA's where the West group is concerned and that could have either a subtle or a profound effect, it remains to be seen.
09-16-2014, 12:26 PM
#34
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
They are trying to steal $10 million, a fair amount of that belongs to the west, they want to use the west's money to fight the west which they no longer represent. We told them that we would sue for that money if it wasn't immediately returned.
09-16-2014, 12:28 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by Al Czervik
Is that an excuse?
09-16-2014, 12:28 PM
#36
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Originally Posted by ackattacker
If the Nic is used to merge East/West, every West pilot can hold Airbus Captain on the LCC side including a 2005 hire.
If that list is then merged with AA using relative position and no bump no flush then that puts a 2005 West hire equal to an AA 737 Captain. I believe (though I'd have to look it up to be sure) that that's around the mid 90's hire date.
Do you think this is an outcome APA will push for? Guys who would have retired as top ten on the seniority list now would retire as number 700 due to the influx of younger guys more senior than them. Your attempt to deflect the conversation with comical personal insults doesn't change the basic facts of the situation. To be honest, I don't think it's entirely up to the APA, I suspect it's going to arbitration. But I wouldn't be so sure that the APA's motivation in the SLI dispute is going to be all that terribly different than USAPA's where the West group is concerned and that could have either a subtle or a profound effect, it remains to be seen.
If that list is then merged with AA using relative position and no bump no flush then that puts a 2005 West hire equal to an AA 737 Captain. I believe (though I'd have to look it up to be sure) that that's around the mid 90's hire date.
Do you think this is an outcome APA will push for? Guys who would have retired as top ten on the seniority list now would retire as number 700 due to the influx of younger guys more senior than them. Your attempt to deflect the conversation with comical personal insults doesn't change the basic facts of the situation. To be honest, I don't think it's entirely up to the APA, I suspect it's going to arbitration. But I wouldn't be so sure that the APA's motivation in the SLI dispute is going to be all that terribly different than USAPA's where the West group is concerned and that could have either a subtle or a profound effect, it remains to be seen.
09-16-2014, 12:35 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by cactiboss
They are trying to steal $10 million, a fair amount of that belongs to the west, they want to use the west's money to fight the west which they no longer represent. We told them that we would sue for that money if it wasn't immediately returned.
I think this lawsuit, if nothing else, is trying to prevent the West from tying up ALL the money. If the West tries to freeze any portion, it should just be the West portion. The legitimate East portion should be available to the merger committee regardless of any position in the lawsuit.
09-16-2014, 12:51 PM
#38
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Originally Posted by algflyr
I would imagine it would be very easy to determine what part of the money came from the West. If the West gets a seat, I think the West portion should be given to the West merger committee. If they don't get a seat, then it should remain with USAPA until this is over. If the West doesn't get a seat, then USAPA will have to use the same method of SLI negotiations for the West as is used for the East. If they fight for position and LOS for the East, those same things will be applied to the West.
I think this lawsuit, if nothing else, is trying to prevent the West from tying up ALL the money. If the West tries to freeze any portion, it should just be the West portion. The legitimate East portion should be available to the merger committee regardless of any position in the lawsuit.
I think this lawsuit, if nothing else, is trying to prevent the West from tying up ALL the money. If the West tries to freeze any portion, it should just be the West portion. The legitimate East portion should be available to the merger committee regardless of any position in the lawsuit.
09-16-2014, 12:53 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: MD-11 FO
Posts: 2,180
Originally Posted by cactiboss
The west wants it's money back, the west doesn't want one penny of the money in the treasury to be used in representing any usairways pilot. The east pilots are free to start and fund their own "leonidas", they can't use usapa money.
09-16-2014, 01:05 PM
#40
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Posts: 52
Originally Posted by ackattacker
If the Nic is used to merge East/West, every West pilot can hold Airbus Captain on the LCC side including a 2005 hire.
If that list is then merged with AA using relative position and no bump no flush then that puts a 2005 West hire equal to an AA 737 Captain. I believe (though I'd have to look it up to be sure) that that's around the mid 90's hire date.
Do you think this is an outcome APA will push for? Guys who would have retired as top ten on the seniority list now would retire as number 700 due to the influx of younger guys more senior than them. Your attempt to deflect the conversation with comical personal insults doesn't change the basic facts of the situation. To be honest, I don't think it's entirely up to the APA, I suspect it's going to arbitration. But I wouldn't be so sure that the APA's motivation in the SLI dispute is going to be all that terribly different than USAPA's where the West group is concerned and that could have either a subtle or a profound effect, it remains to be seen.
If that list is then merged with AA using relative position and no bump no flush then that puts a 2005 West hire equal to an AA 737 Captain. I believe (though I'd have to look it up to be sure) that that's around the mid 90's hire date.
Do you think this is an outcome APA will push for? Guys who would have retired as top ten on the seniority list now would retire as number 700 due to the influx of younger guys more senior than them. Your attempt to deflect the conversation with comical personal insults doesn't change the basic facts of the situation. To be honest, I don't think it's entirely up to the APA, I suspect it's going to arbitration. But I wouldn't be so sure that the APA's motivation in the SLI dispute is going to be all that terribly different than USAPA's where the West group is concerned and that could have either a subtle or a profound effect, it remains to be seen.
Yah? So what's your point you ******ing jackoff. So what. The west guy hired in 2005 is captain. Prior to the merger that was his career expectation, to upgrade in approx 7-8 yrs. The easthole scum that was furloughed AT THE TIME OF MERGER would have still been in the unemployment line. Instead he returned to the newly merged carrier while that 2005 pilot was furloughed for 5 years.
You east guys are incredible. This is a different merger. AA wasn't a day from liquidating. Nevermind. No need to go into that "again". I'm as sick of saying it as you are sick of hearing it.
Why does the age of the pilot bother you so much. Sorry you missed yours due to your ****ty carrier and its many missteps and BK's. The SLI is going to slot positions, not a pilot based on his age.
So is that whats been bothering you old timers the past 8 years.....I get it now...."can't let a guy that got hired in his 20's upgrade in his 30's because I'm in my 50's and I should be there''.
Wait wait....everyone stop. US AIR is over in the corner crying again. They spilled their ice cream again, fell and got a booboo, and wet their pants. Quick, you there, give them yours would ya.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
