MEC Brief: Operating At Red Line, Again
03-08-2022 | 04:53 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 12,546
Likes: 1,151
The Russian invasion, duh. Everyone knows this is actually a Biden orchestrated mission so they can destroy the secret servers and Burrisma something or other. And yes, this is actually a theory I heard. Along side, they are only fighting Putin because they make sure much money in Ukraine. It's oddly schizophrenic
03-08-2022 | 05:06 PM
#32
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 8,351
Likes: 1,366
The Russian invasion, duh. Everyone knows this is actually a Biden orchestrated mission so they can destroy the secret servers and Burrisma something or other. And yes, this is actually a theory I heard. Along side, they are only fighting Putin because they make sure much money in Ukraine. It's oddly schizophrenic
Not trying to single you out CBreezy, you're just the last reply. But see how stupid that sounds? It's amazing how many people will take a crackpot, fringe nut-job (or two) and paint everyone in that demographic with the same brush.
How about we keep politics off the forum? Go yell on Facebook if that's what all y'all want to do.
03-08-2022 | 05:23 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 12,546
Likes: 1,151
You know, I knew a Bengals fan who convicted as a pedophile, complete with child porn. Those friggin' Bengals fans are going to steal your children! Rise up against the Bengals!!! /S
Not trying to single you out CBreezy, you're just the last reply. But see how stupid that sounds? It's amazing how many people will take a crackpot, fringe nut-job (or two) and paint everyone in that demographic with the same brush.
How about we keep politics off the forum? Go yell on Facebook if that's what all y'all want to do.
Not trying to single you out CBreezy, you're just the last reply. But see how stupid that sounds? It's amazing how many people will take a crackpot, fringe nut-job (or two) and paint everyone in that demographic with the same brush.
How about we keep politics off the forum? Go yell on Facebook if that's what all y'all want to do.
03-08-2022 | 05:58 PM
#34
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,105
Likes: 6
From: 737 A
Not to get back on topic but… I was thinking about the status quo argument I posted earlier.
This will probably not be a very popular idea with the green slip crowd, but maybe a little pain now
would solve our contract leverage problem.
Here’s the line of thinking.
If pilots not picking up green slips is viewed as an illegal job action, then would the company greatly increasing the frequency of green slips also be an illegal job action. It’s a way the company is getting more out of us than during the time frame of the contract. That’s the same argument as us doing less than during that same time frame via fatigue, sick, or lack of gs/ws pick ups. Would ALPA be able to argue that green slips per year/bid period/or other time frame be similar to before the amendable date? If ALPA could make that argument (big IF as courts generally side with the company), then the company becomes much more desperate to get back to an active contract.
This will probably not be a very popular idea with the green slip crowd, but maybe a little pain now
would solve our contract leverage problem.
Here’s the line of thinking.
If pilots not picking up green slips is viewed as an illegal job action, then would the company greatly increasing the frequency of green slips also be an illegal job action. It’s a way the company is getting more out of us than during the time frame of the contract. That’s the same argument as us doing less than during that same time frame via fatigue, sick, or lack of gs/ws pick ups. Would ALPA be able to argue that green slips per year/bid period/or other time frame be similar to before the amendable date? If ALPA could make that argument (big IF as courts generally side with the company), then the company becomes much more desperate to get back to an active contract.
03-08-2022 | 07:51 PM
#36
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 933
Likes: 80
From: 73N
Unrealistic to expect that out of pilots. Last time I called in fatigued, it was most obvious fatigue call ever, yet the captain refused to back me and even went out of his way to make sure duty pilot knew he was good to go. It was obvious he was ****ed about my decision but I didn't really care because I've been here so long. No way a new hire would have stood his ground.
03-08-2022 | 07:52 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 12,546
Likes: 1,151
Ive had the same thing happen when refusing to extend. Dude went out of his way to make sure the duty pilot knew he would extend. I told him, “there is no way they replace me in the next 30 mins, you are going to time out along with me.” He insisted on pushing it anyways and I had to wait around for him to go to the hotel. I’ll let you guess which kind of lanyard he was NOT wearing. Sometimes it’s nice that you can get a heads up about what type of guy you're flying with from those types of things.
03-09-2022 | 02:03 AM
#38
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
From: Capt
Not to get back on topic but… I was thinking about the status quo argument I posted earlier.
This will probably not be a very popular idea with the green slip crowd, but maybe a little pain now
would solve our contract leverage problem.
Here’s the line of thinking.
If pilots not picking up green slips is viewed as an illegal job action, then would the company greatly increasing the frequency of green slips also be an illegal job action. It’s a way the company is getting more out of us than during the time frame of the contract. That’s the same argument as us doing less than during that same time frame via fatigue, sick, or lack of gs/ws pick ups. Would ALPA be able to argue that green slips per year/bid period/or other time frame be similar to before the amendable date? If ALPA could make that argument (big IF as courts generally side with the company), then the company becomes much more desperate to get back to an active contract.
This will probably not be a very popular idea with the green slip crowd, but maybe a little pain now
would solve our contract leverage problem.
Here’s the line of thinking.
If pilots not picking up green slips is viewed as an illegal job action, then would the company greatly increasing the frequency of green slips also be an illegal job action. It’s a way the company is getting more out of us than during the time frame of the contract. That’s the same argument as us doing less than during that same time frame via fatigue, sick, or lack of gs/ws pick ups. Would ALPA be able to argue that green slips per year/bid period/or other time frame be similar to before the amendable date? If ALPA could make that argument (big IF as courts generally side with the company), then the company becomes much more desperate to get back to an active contract.
Here’s an historical occurrence and the legal results.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-...20job%20action.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
03-09-2022 | 02:41 AM
#40
On Reserve
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 61
Likes: 1
Unrealistic to expect that out of pilots. Last time I called in fatigued, it was most obvious fatigue call ever, yet the captain refused to back me and even went out of his way to make sure duty pilot knew he was good to go. It was obvious he was ****ed about my decision but I didn't really care because I've been here so long. No way a new hire would have stood his ground.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
