jtf560

They haven't done it yet and can only do it if they waive seat locks and not enough volunteer for the positions offered after the locks were waived. I believe they filled all the slots with pilots that were waived. I guess they can go ahead and do anything and let us grieve it, but I don't see how they get away with it per the contract. Just assigning those positions to a new hire will just get more bad feelings, possibly cost millions extra training shuffles when the company loses the arbitration, and get even more newer pilots angry enough to bail out ASAP.

Pervis

Funny how every time we enter contentious times the trolls emerge. There are two who are obviously instigators. Swede and another who spread the disease of discontent. Who’s next? Who was that one of old? Doesn’t matter. Don’t feed the trolls. Ignoring them is the greatest insult we can return to their bs.

Swedepilut

I spread the disease of discontent? Expand I’m looking forward to this.

Pervis

Tell us of these lies the union has spread. You have been asked, cited one example that is an exaggeration at best, and fail to cite further examples.

Swedepilut

Not at all. The union put out its own email about it blasting the company and trying to wind up the pilots. The email was blatantly false.

That’s not an exaggeration that’s someone taking the time to write an email to the pilot group without any research.

I was asked for an example. I gave one knowing full well that it wouldn’t be good enough for everyone. It was still an example. There are more but it really doesn’t matter.

hdgbug

Once again, you were the one making this claim - "Meanwhile the union has had to walk back many talking points when they were proven blatant lies."

Myself and others asked for what lies (plural) the union was spreading. You came back with one example, that at worst, I view as a quickly composed email to inform the membership of a potential change to company internal policy. As I stated in my original reply to your example, there were many examples being given by pilots who had issues with changing flights that supported the fact that this policy was in fact in place. On the other hand, there were pilots who were able to have changes made as if the policy wasn't in place. So was the policy ever implemented or not? I don't know. What I do know is that I can not find any sort of retraction, which you claim there is but won't point to, from the union.

I believe many of us want to know if there is a pattern of deceit coming from the union leadership that we have not caught onto. Do I agree with the direction the union has gone with everything? Not at all. But I also recognize I am but one vote and one voice. Not everything is going to go the way I want. However, no evidence has been presented that union leadership is running a campaign of deception. Please show us the smoking guns. I don't know what else we can say to convince you to present your evidence of the many blatant lies.

You clearly seem to feel strongly that union leadership is lying to us, so it is confusing as to why you would not want to shed light on those lies. Until that happens, your claims will continue to be classified as FUD.

Swedepilut

It never happened. Nobody provided any examples to the union. The company never said it was a policy. The union said they were wrong. Ooops.

Again an example was asked for. I gave a very clear example of one. Everyone says it’s false. Why would I give more. It doesn’t matter what I say.

You realize what an IBB is right? You’re walking in circles to wear yourselves out so the union can say look at all your hard work…… In the end they are going to accept it.

Peabody17

Above is what I heard.

Swedepilut

Yet you still read it.

hdgbug

I fixed it for you until you want to expand on the multitude of blatant lies that you claim are coming from union leadership. You are the one who claimed a pattern of dishonesty. Multiple people have asked to see that pattern. Regardless of whether or not your singular example is a smoking gun, a single example is not indicative of a pattern. You can continue to double down on your example, or you can engage in educating us as to how union leadership is telling us many blatant lies.

You've also been asked to point us to the claimed retracted by the union. Nothing. If this is the example you're going to double down on, why not provide the location of the retraction? Nobody has said your example was false, but there certainly isn't consensus that it represents an intentional lie by union leadership. Maybe if you point us to the retraction, you might get some more people on your side.