|
|
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1272603)
...or maybe he planned his future around the concept that his union would look out for his (and not the company's) best interests?
We won't make that mistake again. |
Originally Posted by 76drvr
(Post 1272712)
We could reduce DCI capacity by over 15%, reduce DCI jets by over 200 and add dozens of mainline aircraft to pick up the capacity shortfall.:D
|
Originally Posted by SailorJerry
(Post 1272704)
Tough to collect a check when you and your union burn your company to the ground. American Airlines was recently ranked the most likely company to not exist at the end of 2013. Why? Because the pilots hated management and they've ruined the brand.
|
Originally Posted by SailorJerry
(Post 1272704)
Tough to collect a check when you and your union burn your company to the ground. American Airlines was recently ranked the most likely company to not exist at the end of 2013. Why? Because the pilots hated management and they've ruined the brand.
Absolutely amazing arrogance in your post....wow. |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1272723)
The pilot are NOT the sole source of AMR's brand going to crap. Maybe 11,000 WARN notices issued to mechanics are contributing to the MX delays? Don't let it seem like I'm not fully in support of what the AAL pilots are doing though. It takes a lot of guts, a lot of patience, and a lot of steel to make management freak out like that. |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1272726)
Its getting tough to distinguish management ALPAoids these days. Absolutely amazing arrogance in your post....wow. So am I management or an ALPAoid? What's your preference? I'm one or the other. |
Loving watching Gawga getting the poop kicked out of them.
|
Originally Posted by padre2992
(Post 1272644)
Not at all. But...
What I'm observing is candidates who think the major focus should be on the Policy Manual. I've never seen that focus, except for this election. I surmise that it's a play to get what they want via some political maneuvering versus a political majority. It might be a way to gain more individual influence in a structure that has confusing and crossed lines of responsibility. Fundamentally, it probably displays a poor understanding of effective organizations. I've seen in the past a different focus. Where do we fall short in pay, working conditions, benefits, etc., and how do we improve them? So does changing the Policy Manual get us better pay because it makes us a more effective organization? I'd like to hear what is broken, and how to fix it, before jack hammering the foundation. Your thoughts? How is making the MEC Chairman and / or Administration more responsive to the pilots they serve "jack hammering" our foundation? We routinely make changes to the policy manual, as needed, to best serve our pilots. Of course, one or two Reps wanting changes to the policy manual does not make it so. Most likely it means an interesting discussion about the democratization of information. Any and all candidates have been for more "pay, benefits and working conditions." That list does not distinguish one candidate from another. However, a candidate stating they want changes to make the administration more responsive to the pilots is real news. We will see if it is a winning political move. The administration probably would not have supported these candidates anyway. But now we see they will use their expertise to actively campaign against the threat to their exclusive club. My sense is the administration is powerful enough to get their preferred candidates elected, thus ensuring their own survival, that's politics. It is fascinating to watch. Pilots have been saying they want this choice. Let us see what they do with it. |
Originally Posted by SailorJerry
(Post 1272730)
Agreed. They helped ruin the brand. Seats popping out of tracks didn't help either.
Don't let it seem like I'm not fully in support of what the AAL pilots are doing though. It takes a lot of guts, a lot of patience, and a lot of steel to make management freak out like that. and my post should have read management OR ALPAoids. The point was that you were trashing other union pilots in your post. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1272749)
Padre,
How is making the MEC Chairman and / or Administration more responsive to the pilots they serve "jack hammering" our foundation? We routinely make changes to the policy manual, as needed, to best serve our pilots. Of course, one or two Reps wanting changes to the policy manual does not make it so. Most likely it means an interesting discussion about the democratization of information. Any and all candidates have been for more "pay, benefits and working conditions." That list does not distinguish one candidate from another. However, a candidate stating they want changes to make the administration more responsive to the pilots is real news. We will see if it is a winning political move. The administration probably would not have supported these candidates anyway. But now we see they will use their expertise to actively campaign against the threat to their exclusive club. My sense is the administration is powerful enough to get their preferred candidates elected, thus ensuring their own survival, that's politics. It is fascinating to watch. Pilots have been saying they want this choice. Let us see what they do with it. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:00 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands