Fatigue: IPA taking leadership role
#41
Hmmmm, didn't know narrowbody pay was on the table at the IPA, I better re-read my notes.
By the way if you can't read between Sideshow's lines- this is not just entertaining reading by the line bubbas n bros out there.
Guys rabid/dedicated/emotionally invested enough to live on a board are not the majority vote. They sure are one easy to read voice.
By the way if you can't read between Sideshow's lines- this is not just entertaining reading by the line bubbas n bros out there.
Guys rabid/dedicated/emotionally invested enough to live on a board are not the majority vote. They sure are one easy to read voice.
#42
Hmmmm, didn't know narrowbody pay was on the table at the IPA, I better re-read my notes.
By the way if you can't read between Sideshow's lines- this is not just entertaining reading by the line bubbas n bros out there.
Guys rabid/dedicated/emotionally invested enough to live on a board are not the majority vote. They sure are one easy to read voice.
By the way if you can't read between Sideshow's lines- this is not just entertaining reading by the line bubbas n bros out there.
Guys rabid/dedicated/emotionally invested enough to live on a board are not the majority vote. They sure are one easy to read voice.
We do what's good for us. I wouldn't trade anything in our contract for your "supposed" higher pay rates. Supposed as in: "We had it all locked up in 2006 and FDX/ALPA opened with much lower rates." Yeah, right. How's that deadheading thing working our for your guys?
#44
Works fine for me, I live in base so it's all commuting for pay, one way or the other.
I'm not sport b1tching about the past, very different contracts in many ways, some of which I can appreciate and understand. Whether I'd like some of what's in yours or not- we'd be on very different roads into and out of them. We're not at the same table, there is scant way the contexts of how the points got into each CBA easily compare.
Being overlapped on the timing of the tables just means I hope our EBs keep each other in the daylight.
Clutch, I was an '07 hire, so it's really not mine to point backwards, just learn about and from the past.
I'm not sport b1tching about the past, very different contracts in many ways, some of which I can appreciate and understand. Whether I'd like some of what's in yours or not- we'd be on very different roads into and out of them. We're not at the same table, there is scant way the contexts of how the points got into each CBA easily compare.
Being overlapped on the timing of the tables just means I hope our EBs keep each other in the daylight.
Clutch, I was an '07 hire, so it's really not mine to point backwards, just learn about and from the past.
Last edited by MoosePileit; 02-26-2015 at 10:18 AM. Reason: clarity
#45
Might as well whip 'em out...
This doesn't need to be an IPA v. ALPA or UPS v. FDX argument. The contracts are DIFFERENT, as the operations and management are different...
The fact remains both IPA (with CAPA) and ALPA are pursuing a legislative remedy to the cargo cutout, while ALPA declined to join the IPA in an additional legal challenge to the FAA policy.
Hang together or hang separately, and all that jazz...
This doesn't need to be an IPA v. ALPA or UPS v. FDX argument. The contracts are DIFFERENT, as the operations and management are different...
The fact remains both IPA (with CAPA) and ALPA are pursuing a legislative remedy to the cargo cutout, while ALPA declined to join the IPA in an additional legal challenge to the FAA policy.
Hang together or hang separately, and all that jazz...
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Might as well whip 'em out...
This doesn't need to be an IPA v. ALPA or UPS v. FDX argument. The contracts are DIFFERENT, as the operations and management are different...
The fact remains both IPA (with CAPA) and ALPA are pursuing a legislative remedy to the cargo cutout, while ALPA declined to join the IPA in an additional legal challenge to the FAA policy.
Hang together or hang separately, and all that jazz...
This doesn't need to be an IPA v. ALPA or UPS v. FDX argument. The contracts are DIFFERENT, as the operations and management are different...
The fact remains both IPA (with CAPA) and ALPA are pursuing a legislative remedy to the cargo cutout, while ALPA declined to join the IPA in an additional legal challenge to the FAA policy.
Hang together or hang separately, and all that jazz...
You would need one, or more, of these for FDX guys:
#47
Please use better reading comprehension when you eventually get to a T/A. Though, I fear, Powerpoint may be more your speed.
Dangazone and I were being constructive, but a regular poster has to drag it backwards.
Dangazone and I were being constructive, but a regular poster has to drag it backwards.
#49
Classic example...thinly veiled threat of jumpseat refusal...classy.
At UPS we pretty universally despise our management, and openly berate it, while at the same time seeing that everything good we do have is due to the cohesive, unified and gutsy IPA. If not for IPA we'd be little better than the worst non-sched out there. Some, and I emphasize some FDX guys go apoplectic when anyone dares criticize Fred or ALPA, who has done as much damage to in particular the junior of many carriers as they've done good.
The Tony and Jetjok in particular love to needle us, and more than not have zero tolerance for anything but accolades for Fred and ALPA. That kind of selective insecurity speaks volumes.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ArcticDog
Major
8
12-26-2008 08:08 AM