SLI compromises
11-09-2008, 12:46 PM
#11
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Selcall
Carl,
I am not interested in seeing that "turd" you call Date of Hire anymore on any posts. That type of pontification is as offensive to me as Delta's MEC proposal is to you.
I am not interested in seeing that "turd" you call Date of Hire anymore on any posts. That type of pontification is as offensive to me as Delta's MEC proposal is to you.
I shouldn't mention Date of Hire anymore because Selcall thinks it's offensive?
Delta's cherry picking ratio is far more offensive. But I would not consider telling any Delta pilot that I don't want to see it mentioned anymore.
Get the hell over yourself. You're an internet character - not a moderator.
Carl
11-09-2008, 01:10 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Trying to remember "Thrust Normal", "Checks", and something else besides "How are the rides today?"
Posts: 117
You are right Carl I am not a moderator. My apologies for even thinking I could come close to your ability. I will make sure to quibble in the future so I completely understand my place within this interent board. I just find your statements lacking any real understanding that the position of "Date of Hire" as a tool to intergrate two seprate seniority lists into one is extinct in today's world.
The chance of "Date of Hire" being a reality is like you finding the Holy Grail. Good luck in your quest. I understand that both MEC's positions are highly offensive to our respective pilot groups. Let me make it more clear for you then. You are beating a dead horse on a tireless argument that I truly believe is very close to be negoitiated to an final end by both our repsective MEC's.
If we follow ALPA National's Merger Policy between two ALPA carriers then you must be aware that Date of Hire is not even a part of that policy approved by our Board of Director's at ALPA National.
Have fun on that "Super Premium Widebody". See you in ATL.
The chance of "Date of Hire" being a reality is like you finding the Holy Grail. Good luck in your quest. I understand that both MEC's positions are highly offensive to our respective pilot groups. Let me make it more clear for you then. You are beating a dead horse on a tireless argument that I truly believe is very close to be negoitiated to an final end by both our repsective MEC's.
If we follow ALPA National's Merger Policy between two ALPA carriers then you must be aware that Date of Hire is not even a part of that policy approved by our Board of Director's at ALPA National.
Have fun on that "Super Premium Widebody". See you in ATL.
11-09-2008, 01:18 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Gentlemen,
May I kindly suggest a "knock it off"?
We've beat this horse to death. We've each picked our respective gladiators and thrown them into the ring. In the end, I hope they decide to shake hands and live to fight side by side another day. If not, then they'll fight it out.
In any event, we're in the grandstands now, and it serves no purpose to continue the fight up here. It will be over soon enough, and regardless of the outcome, I hope we all consider ourselves on the same team going forward.
PG
May I kindly suggest a "knock it off"?
We've beat this horse to death. We've each picked our respective gladiators and thrown them into the ring. In the end, I hope they decide to shake hands and live to fight side by side another day. If not, then they'll fight it out.
In any event, we're in the grandstands now, and it serves no purpose to continue the fight up here. It will be over soon enough, and regardless of the outcome, I hope we all consider ourselves on the same team going forward.
PG
11-09-2008, 02:13 PM
#14
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Selcall
If we follow ALPA National's Merger Policy between two ALPA carriers then you must be aware that Date of Hire is not even a part of that policy approved by our Board of Director's at ALPA National.
Carl
11-09-2008, 02:24 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 757 Left
Posts: 1,306
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
If we follow ALPA merger policy, ratios are not even a part of that policy approved by our Board of Directors. But I'm sure you knew that.
Carl
Carl
11-09-2008, 07:06 PM
#18
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by wiggy
I agree, 100%. Take care of the "now" being fair rather than attempt to make the future come out as you would like it or as you think you are "entitled" to have it come out. Current seniority preservation has top priority, and is common sense.
Your argument is flawed. You want to protect current seniority, and not base it on what "might be" in the future. However, you also want to "protect" DAL guys from the rumor(or so called threat) that ALL the DC9s will be parked. Well, there will still be more than 400 pilots worth of DC9s flying after Christmas, so therefore there is NO NEED to protect DAL pilots. Any further DC9s parked will be AFTER the SLI. If you protect DAL pilots from the DC9s, you are doing it based on something that MAY happen in the near future. That of course is irrelevant, as we are making a list based on the NOW.
11-10-2008, 03:54 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Here is ALPA's merger policy. The arbitrators have agreed to produce a list that abides by this merger policy.
“a. Preserve jobs.
“b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the
other.
“c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of
living.
“d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.
“e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.”
“b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the
other.
“c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of
living.
“d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.
“e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.”
11-10-2008, 05:06 AM
#20
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by sailingfun
Here is ALPA's merger policy. The arbitrators have agreed to produce a list that abides by this merger policy.
“a. Preserve jobs.
“b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the
other.
“c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of
living.
“d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.
“e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.”
“b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the
other.
“c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of
living.
“d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.
“e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.”
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
