ALPA is a JOKE

Reply Subscribe

Page 8 of 11

« First

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

10-14-2020 | 04:11 AM

#71

Gspeed

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jan 2014

Posts: 2,286

Likes: 18

Quote:

Originally Posted by OOfff

he retired to help a junior pilot but rails against anyone who thinks VOLUNTARY measures that might save jobs should be approved.

🙄

I’m starting to think that either multiple people post under his name, or he’s bipolar. There are a lot of inconsistencies with his posting style as well as demeanor.

10-14-2020 | 04:20 AM

#72

hockeypilot44

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jul 2008

Posts: 5,585

Likes: 328

Disregard my opinion

10-14-2020 | 04:46 AM

#73

Lucifer

The Fallen Cherub

Joined: Aug 2020

Posts: 143

Likes: 0

From: Wings & Prayer

Quote:

Originally Posted by pangolin

Nobody really knows the yields. Not even you.

Over the years ALPA E&FA has developed a very clear picture of how the numbers actually work.

10-14-2020 | 06:30 AM

#74

Phins2right

Banned

Joined: Feb 2020

Posts: 1,060

Likes: 0

From: Gummed

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElCaribe

The real question is would he have retired without the financial gain? You know for the sake of helping a junior pilot.

I had been thinking about retiring since last summer. When optimizer 2.0 was kicking us in the ballz. the man I'm getting to old for this shizzle was strong. Further, my spouse is a high earner. An MD with a very successful practice. As I have indicated countless times before my circumstances are different than most. When the VEOP was offered, I read the offer, decided it would work for me and my family. To include that the union also mentioned that it might save some of the 2558 was icing on the cake. Made it an easy decision. Recall we had no metric as to how many VEOP takers vis-a-vis 2558 saves would happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OOfff

he retired to help a junior pilot but rails against anyone who thinks VOLUNTARY measures that might save jobs should be approved.

🙄

My issue with planetrain and the others is that when they list the "good" things one can do with this voluntary LOA, none of the lists include saving the 220. One would think it would be reason numero uno. The reasons listed are very self centered. So is voting yes for LOA 20-03 for "you", or is it to save 220 pilots jobs? Of the lists posted here, none of you indicate that it has anything to do with saving the 220.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gspeed

I’m starting to think that either multiple people post under his name, or he’s bipolar. There are a lot of inconsistencies with his posting style as well as demeanor.

I'm not the one stalking people thru the threads like you, OOFFFF and beta82. Not sure what else to say there Dr Freud. No, not different people posting using my account. Just me.

10-14-2020 | 06:53 AM

#75

OOfff

Banned

Joined: Sep 2016

Posts: 8,831

Likes: 499

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phins2right

thank you for adding another reason to vote yes.

Quote:

I'm not the one stalking people thru the threads like you, OOFFFF and beta82. Not sure what else to say there Dr Freud. No, not different people posting using my account. Just me.

You think too highly of yourself if you imagine that I’m “stalking you” into the top thread in the forum

10-14-2020 | 02:05 PM

#76

Herkflyr

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jul 2007

Posts: 2,563

Likes: 107

From: Road construction signholder

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phins2right

When the VEOP was offered, I read the offer, decided it would work for me and my family. To include that the union also mentioned that it might save some of the 2558 was icing on the cake. Made it an easy decision

Gee that sounds an awful lot like something else we are all debating right now....

Substitute "ULC" or "MBL/CBL" and a couple of other words instead of "VEOP" and we are in agreement.

10-14-2020 | 05:27 PM

#77

TED74

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Sep 2014

Posts: 5,150

Likes: 116

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herkflyr

Gee that sounds an awful lot like something else we are all debating right now....

Substitute "ULC" or "MBL/CBL" and a couple of other words instead of "VEOP" and we are in agreement.

Substitute "all applicants who can be accommodated will be, through date MMYY" into this LOA, and you'd have my vote. That's how the VEOP was negotiated and executed. We have the antithesis of that with this LOA, where the company has no obligation to implement any of it.

10-14-2020 | 05:32 PM

#78

Herkflyr

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jul 2007

Posts: 2,563

Likes: 107

From: Road construction signholder

Quote:

Originally Posted by TED74

Isn't even that language a bit vague? All the company could say is "we couldn't accommodate them."

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

10-14-2020 | 05:43 PM

#79

TED74

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Sep 2014

Posts: 5,150

Likes: 116

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herkflyr

Isn't even that language a bit vague? All the company could say is "we couldn't accommodate them."

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'll admit that my APC language is not appropriate contractual language. My underlying point is that the VEOP was a successful product and negotiating win partly because it wasn't full of holes for management to exploit. I honestly don't think it even had one... other than bankruptcy (TBD). This LOA guaranteed almost nothing, other than military leave protections that our peers extended to their members months ago (our ANG and AFRC pilots will not be late to the fight for orders, or miss it entirely if this thing gets voted down).