Merger getting blocked
03-06-2023 | 04:37 PM
#92
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 742
Likes: 22
03-06-2023 | 05:04 PM
#93
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,714
Likes: 53
As long as they are gonna pay us for it and the planes are brought onto our certificate and never allowed to move the other way.
swa/at style. That’s how they did it.
im just saying right now the contract doesn’t allow it and we better not allow a work around unless the language is very tight.
no dual ops without a plan to bring it all under one roof.
swa/at style. That’s how they did it.
im just saying right now the contract doesn’t allow it and we better not allow a work around unless the language is very tight.
no dual ops without a plan to bring it all under one roof.
03-06-2023 | 05:10 PM
#94
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,935
Likes: 0
From: Airbus Capt
As long as they are gonna pay us for it and the planes are brought onto our certificate and never allowed to move the other way.
swa/at style. That’s how they did it.
im just saying right now the contract doesn’t allow it and we better not allow a work around unless the language is very tight.
no dual ops without a plan to bring it all under one roof.
swa/at style. That’s how they did it.
im just saying right now the contract doesn’t allow it and we better not allow a work around unless the language is very tight.
no dual ops without a plan to bring it all under one roof.
03-06-2023 | 05:44 PM
#95
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 472
Likes: 1
As long as they are gonna pay us for it and the planes are brought onto our certificate and never allowed to move the other way.
swa/at style. That’s how they did it.
im just saying right now the contract doesn’t allow it and we better not allow a work around unless the language is very tight.
no dual ops without a plan to bring it all under one roof.
swa/at style. That’s how they did it.
im just saying right now the contract doesn’t allow it and we better not allow a work around unless the language is very tight.
no dual ops without a plan to bring it all under one roof.
Company: “We are going to do it anyway.”
ALPA: ok, but only for a 2% raise (for a loss to inflation).
*sell job sell job sell job because FEAR!!!*
ALPA will fold for a crappy LOA because there will be fear of the arbitrator, or fear of force majeure, or some other reason B6ALPA will spew to justify folding like the wet noodle they are, but they will be sure to get them next time. They have as much spine as a jellyfish.
03-06-2023 | 06:18 PM
#97
.
Joined: Jul 2022
Posts: 601
Likes: 44
As long as they promise a Task Farce to look into Profit Sharing….. oh wait.
03-06-2023 | 06:33 PM
#98
On Reserve
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 66
Likes: 2
From: A320 Captain
CBA 1.0: clearly doesn’t allow focus city to focus city and focus city to international codeshare/JV.
Company: “We are going to do it anyway.”
ALPA: ok, but only for a 2% raise (for a loss to inflation).
*sell job sell job sell job because FEAR!!!*
ALPA will fold for a crappy LOA because there will be fear of the arbitrator, or fear of force majeure, or some other reason B6ALPA will spew to justify folding like the wet noodle they are, but they will be sure to get them next time. They have as much spine as a jellyfish.
Company: “We are going to do it anyway.”
ALPA: ok, but only for a 2% raise (for a loss to inflation).
*sell job sell job sell job because FEAR!!!*
ALPA will fold for a crappy LOA because there will be fear of the arbitrator, or fear of force majeure, or some other reason B6ALPA will spew to justify folding like the wet noodle they are, but they will be sure to get them next time. They have as much spine as a jellyfish.
03-06-2023 | 06:59 PM
#100
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,274
Likes: 55
From: 190 captain and “Pro-pilot”
As long as they are gonna pay us for it and the planes are brought onto our certificate and never allowed to move the other way.
swa/at style. That’s how they did it.
im just saying right now the contract doesn’t allow it and we better not allow a work around unless the language is very tight.
no dual ops without a plan to bring it all under one roof.
swa/at style. That’s how they did it.
im just saying right now the contract doesn’t allow it and we better not allow a work around unless the language is very tight.
no dual ops without a plan to bring it all under one roof.
Ahhh Frank Lorenzo returns. Man if anyone even thinks that dual ops would be ok they need to be shown a history book.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
