(sarcasm on)

You guys are being WAY too hard on DW and his mustachioed cronies. They have worked too hard to give up their draft, volunteer and CARRY-OVER. They deserve to make 150% of what the majority of the crew force makes, and they shouldn't give that up, by gum, by golly. We (the junior folks) have much more time to make up any "temporary" loses suffered through more BLG reduction and/or fuurlough. Heck, it builds character!!

(sarcasm off):mad:

Are you kidding? First, if you can truly follow and understand all that garbage, more power to ya. Not to mention the time involved in reading that 'legalese salary justification' Bull***t. Second, the intent is not to do anything to cost the company more money but to bring public light to the measures we are already going to to save money and our jobs/lifestyle.

No, I'm not kidding and yes I can understand what it says. It is bull, but it's also the reality of the times we live in. I understand the legitimate reasons that you may wish to hear/talk about this info, however none of us can control some of the other stuff that will inevitably come from 4800 people talking about it-especially if something negative goes down shortly. If you actually read that document, it wasn't just the mad posts on forums that caused all of the drama. There were several legitimate communications by ALPA and on forums like these that were twisted by lawyers into something that they weren't and rubber stamped by a judge. The public is not our friend in such matters for many reasons.

Angry,

See pm!

Whale

Well, I'd say of course Mgt can do what they want while we grive. But they can kiss fuel sense, two engine taxi, delayed APU start and who knows what else good bye during the process. Just so I understand. Our company is making 2 BILLION per year and the buy up is costing 12 Million. So the way to save .05% of annual earnings is to go to war with the crew force so they can reduce our pay?

Or maybe again the Mgt on Democrat is out of touch with the strategic goals of Hacks Cross.

Rubber stamped by an anti-labor judge alright. No consideration given to pilots actually being tired or aircraft not being maintained properly. Since when is refusing a waiver to the contract wrong? A nasty, concessionary contract to boot. It's clear to me that right and wrong are not being considered in these types of lawsuits. Only a contention that labor was doing something different and it needed to be stamped out by the law.

Any words written about modifying behavior during a disagreement will be held against us because it is in the public and company interest to do so.

Have fun with the blame game all you want, just don't let it lead you to make a bad decision.

don't throw the baby out with the bathwater
don't cut your nose off to spite your face
live in the now

F.I.D.O
Forget It Drive On

So.... I'm confused....

You want a LOA to be put to a vote?

Didn't we do that with the FDA LOA?

By the title of the thread, it seems you didn't like how that went....

As long as you don't forget the best "we are gonna get" LOA was improved at least three times because it had to go to the membership instead of getting rubber stamped by a 12-0 vote.

Uh, it was management that said there is no time for a LOA. Not DW.

This, in spite of the fact that the MEC has had a furlough mitigation proposal ready to go for several months.