When Flossing isn’t Enough

Subscribe
1  2  3 
Page 1 of 3
Go to
RJ’s to DAL, ORD, MCI, AUS, Hub -to-Hub? We are talking large metro areas here!

SCOPE over PENSIONS!

Time to right the ship and eliminate carve outs, remember it’s not about me it’s about US. I refuse to work for less to support your pension. All of us or none of us.
Reply
Quote: RJ’s to DAL, ORD, MCI, AUS, Hub -to-Hub? We are talking large metro areas here!

SCOPE over PENSIONS!

Time to right the ship and eliminate carve outs, remember it’s not about me it’s about US. I refuse to work for less to support your pension. All of us or none of us.
If you’re not management yet, you will be. Shut your division-creating pie hole.
Reply
Quote: RJ’s to DAL, ORD, MCI, AUS, Hub -to-Hub? We are talking large metro areas here!

SCOPE over PENSIONS!

Time to right the ship and eliminate carve outs, remember it’s not about me it’s about US. I refuse to work for less to support your pension. All of us or none of us.
This is bad trolling. This thread should be deleted. You give former VX pilots a bad name.
Reply
Yeah this is unnecessary. The NC will balance all interests accordingly, as it should be (if for some reason they don't, whatever they cook up won't pass). Should be something for everyone.
Reply
It’s only unnecessary to give up something when we already have nothing, his or her point regarding how our regional flying is far surpassing what should be tolerated by main line pilots is correct. We need a meaningful scope clause and we need it yesterday
Reply
Quote: It’s only unnecessary to give up something when we already have nothing, his or her point regarding how our regional flying is far surpassing what should be tolerated by main line pilots is correct. We need a meaningful scope clause and we need it yesterday
That's not what he said though. What he wrote was very divisive.
Reply
Quote: We need a meaningful scope clause and we need it yesterday
More like we needed it 20 years ago.
Reply
Agree with you shy and yes 20 years ago would be more appropriate than yesterday.
Reply
The only thing that divides this pilot group is section 28.
Reply
Quote: The only thing that divides this pilot group is section 28.
No, it doesn't divide anything. What an insult to the AS pilot group. You (we) brought zero CBA to the merger. The AS CBA encompassed us along with some payrate and 401K DC improvements. The contract had already established the AS pilots' retirement plans before this merger ever came about. A very small amount of pilots are in the status quo plan and most are in the rebalanced portion. Every one of their pilots hired after 2010 is in the same DC plan as the rest of us. Section 28 has a specific section applicable only to VX pilots. As it stands, VX pilots are in full compliance with the CBA.


I cannot believe there are VX pilots calling for selling out AS pensions in order to secure scope and section 25 improvements. Your comments are divisive and only hurts unity going forward for contract 2020.
Reply
1  2  3 
Page 1 of 3
Go to