|
The eagle guys need to look at XJT to see their future. Prop feed replaced by colgan, 50 seat feed replaced by CHQ, massive furloughs follow.
|
Originally Posted by bailee atr
(Post 680962)
He was just voted in. I like the fact that T.G. waisted no time in pointing out our new contract violation. I really hope his new MEC chair acceptance video becomes a reality and we do become a more unified pilot group.
|
Originally Posted by boosh
(Post 680997)
The eagle guys need to look at XJT to see their future. Prop feed replaced by colgan, 50 seat feed replaced by CHQ, massive furloughs follow.
|
Originally Posted by boosh
(Post 680997)
The eagle guys need to look at XJT to see their future. Prop feed replaced by colgan, 50 seat feed replaced by CHQ, massive furloughs follow.
on this contributes to contract enforcement..how? |
what exactly is the wording in regards to the arbitrators ruling about keeping chq in stl? I cant seem to find my old eagle contract and i am curious about it.
|
Originally Posted by mwa1
(Post 681004)
on this contributes to contract enforcement..how?
|
Originally Posted by 320ToBearz
(Post 680944)
To the Eagle guys: When did Tony get elected and Herb got out of office? It's nice to see Herb get out of his ivory tower and fly from the right seat and witness what his crappy leadership brought out.
We're not a top-down corporation or even an insurance company. We're a union. A group who's power and direction comes from the bottom up. If, like an irresponsible father who tosses his 16 year old son the keys to the car no questions asked, we do not monitor the activities of our elected reps, then we only have ourselves to blame. In my past 19 years as a union pilot, I've noticed an inverse correlation between the loudness a pilot screams about their union and their personal involvement in that same union. |
Originally Posted by Killer51883
(Post 680736)
I am trying to remember my eagle contract's language regarding this but I cant off the top of my head. But if the sole complaint is about the “aggressively seek to increase flying opportunities” and “bid on opportunities to provide additional feed to American Airlines” then I dont see what sort of stand the eagle has against the company when eagle is the one getting "increase(d) flying opportunities" to "provide additional feed to American Airlines" with the additional CRJ's. If you wouldnt mind helping me and fellow RAH pilots understand the situation I am sure it would be appreciated.
Alot of this was already decided during the TSA arbitration in 2002. The arbitor - even though he ruled against EGL ALPA - went on to provide examples of what "would" have been a violation... This was used to return the MIA flying that was temporarilly transfered to an outside contractor a year or so ago... This is just another example of AMR forcing labor groups to spend/waste money defending their contract. In the end, the decision was already rendered back in 2002. |
Originally Posted by eaglefly
(Post 680794)
That's not the issue. It's flying routes we currently fly that is. It's WHY we lost the previous arbitration regarding the transfer of our aircraft to another carrier. The arbiter said he was ruling in favor of AMR because, "these were not previously your routes".................well, now they are and Eagle ALPA will have some legal background to demonstrate the violation.
as much as I enjoy disagreeing with you.... you are correct. He also added to his ruling that Eagle was in maximum growth mode already and was unable to assume the extra flying.... that condition no longer exists either. |
Originally Posted by ToiletDuck
(Post 680900)
You don't have to argue that point with me I understand completely. We have one with AMR as well I hope they plan on looking into. I was wondering because they make it sound as if AE is losing flying in all of this when as of right now it looks like they are gaining.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:39 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands