Another ALPA DFR lawsuit is filed.
03-25-2012, 06:16 PM
#31
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by shoelu
All I ever wanted wanted in this integration was to end up in the same relative place at retirement as I would without the merger. That's what I ended up getting. Due to the younger age of the AT group I ended up with a single digit bump in seniority now which erodes to zero at retirement. I feel that that was fair to me and my expectations. I can't speak to what the others involved expected or considered as fair. Fair to one is a gross injustice to another.
03-25-2012, 07:18 PM
#32
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by shoelu
All I ever wanted wanted in this integration was to end up in the same relative place at retirement as I would without the merger. That's what I ended up getting. Due to the younger age of the AT group I ended up with a single digit bump in seniority now which erodes to zero at retirement. I feel that that was fair to me and my expectations. I can't speak to what the others involved expected or considered as fair. Fair to one is a gross injustice to another.
03-25-2012, 08:23 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 530
Originally Posted by shoelu
I can't speak to what the others involved expected or considered as fair. Fair to one is a gross injustice to another.
Relative ratio with fences, the only way to go. Every other argument, pay differences, the age of pilot group, you name the reason...they are all just a rationalization of the disservice done to the other pilot group.
03-26-2012, 09:49 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,153
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
2. I always thought there would be a lawsuit but I thought it'd be aimed at SWA over McCaskill-Bond and the proverbial gun to their heads? Instead, it's at ALPA for not allowing a vote on the first deal and some misdeeds thereafter.
Well, did not not see that coming.
Well, did not not see that coming.
As for MB, it has enough holes in it that you could fly a fleet of 717s through it. Besides, there's no case since AT's membership voted in favor of AIP2. It passed with 83.52% YES at AT; kind of hard to argue that it wasn't 'fair' to AT's line pilots.
03-27-2012, 06:09 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 478
Originally Posted by Andy
While I argued that AT's MEC should have sent AIP1 out to the membership for a vote, advising against, I never anticipated AT's MEC getting sued for not sending it out to the membership. I merely thought that all pilots should have had a straight yes/no vote on AIP1.
As for MB, it has enough holes in it that you could fly a fleet of 717s through it. Besides, there's no case since AT's membership voted in favor of AIP2. It passed with 83.52% YES at AT; kind of hard to argue that it wasn't 'fair' to AT's line pilots.
As for MB, it has enough holes in it that you could fly a fleet of 717s through it. Besides, there's no case since AT's membership voted in favor of AIP2. It passed with 83.52% YES at AT; kind of hard to argue that it wasn't 'fair' to AT's line pilots.
03-27-2012, 07:16 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 335
Originally Posted by Andy
........ It passed with 83.52% YES at AT; kind of hard to argue that it wasn't 'fair' to AT's line pilots.
03-27-2012, 11:06 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by Clear Right
It's pretty simple really.
Relative ratio with fences, the only way to go.
Relative ratio with fences, the only way to go.
So you would pole vault 10-20 years ahead of just about any pilot in your relative group in the country but hey, it's the "fair" thing to do, right?
I don't begrudge anybody their pipe dream. Especially one as comforting as that.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
