One more thing. Stop using your cell phones to call dispatch and SAM when on the plane. Use ARINC, It was set up specifically for that reason. Less convenient of course but let the company pay for those minutes.

When you are on your 3:59 sit keep in mind you are not on Field Standby. Before you answer your cell phone when the crew desk calls check your schedule from your smartphone to see if the reassignment is in your best interest.

 

Who EVER answers their phone when the crew desk is calling? I listen to their message, then call them back after I've checked their accuracy if needed.

C/B

Pete

 

We are industry leading at being team players. Marvin Manliner will not only take the call, but will do his best Sherlock Holmes to track the other guy down.

 

I do not think it would have as much of an effect as a suspension of line checks on the over 60 pilots. I think an over 60 pilot has to have a line check every 6 months and their are no waivers or extensions (until they give one). Just think how many pilots are over 60 in the left seat of our 747, 777, and 767 aircraft. I would say that would be a huge motivator for management to get off their tails. But ALPA does not have the ballz to advocate this type of behavior with the injunction albatross around its neck.

I wonder what a combination of the two scenarios would look like.

Craig

 

Unfortunately, a lot (not all) of the folks in the LCA/SC positions these days are not the type who would participate in that kind of a thing, even if it weren't for the injunction. Probably not a coincidence.

 

Are you saying these are the same type of unionist that advocated and supported a contract and side letter of agreement that gave away 3000+ jobs to express carriers? And sued ALPA to get more Bond Payment after the distribution that was predicated on age 60 retirement and that are now still here flying past age 60?

Craig

 

Those would be they! Selfish mf's

 

So why has no one sued them, to get the extra money back? I think they should have paid the extra money back or retired at age 60. Why when they received the extra payout was there no retire at 60 clause? Anyone know?

 

I guess one would have to be one of the MEC members or a fly on the wall during one of the closed door meetings they had about the bond formula but I cant imagine that anyone that was formulating the plan that would benefit from the distribution would also include a claw back provision that would take from them.

I do know that the UAL ALPA MEC approved a 5 million dollar payment to Steve Presser, a finance consultant, for his assistance in contract 2003/bond issue/stock distribution. This is in contrast to American's APA that paid Steve Presser 1 million for his consulting fee for essentially the same service that was provided to UAL ALPA. I only end up with more questions than answers.

 

Ah, Craig Gullickson, you never fail to disappoint!

If you ACTUALLY did the calculation, the "closer to retirement" pilots would generally have received MORE from the Gap2 calculation that was used (and with which I disagreed) IF they had Age 65 as law on the date of allocation. But don't let the FACTS get in the way of your "I HATE ALPA" drumbeat.

As to Presser, he was paid a FEE, as a percentage of the Bond amount. The Bond came in about $40M HIGHER than ANYONE had suggested it would, so you can consider that a $35M WINDFALL for the pilots of UAL, as ALL CALCULATIONS had been made based on $500M, not the ~$540M it returned to the pilots. All other monies he received as our advisor are paid out of a global "refund" package that the company provides for our negotiation expenses. This is a STANDARD thing, and, if you notice, the company is CURRENTLY paying UAL and CAL ALPA $10M in negotiating expenses UPFRONT for the current merger. Nothing nefarious about the company paying such fees, at all, even to our advisors!

Hopefully, your other "questions" will be slightly more informed?!