I don't know anybody by the name of Andy Chen.

However, rather than focusing on Andy Chen, you might let the above result send a lesson of what not to do under US labor laws and the RLA. Organized work slowdowns are illegal whether released or not. Only strikes are legal if released. Planned "slowdowns" are illegal anytime.

I've spent a lot of time in the grievance process helping members navigate the company discipline/termination path for doing something incredibly stupid. Labor organizations needlessly burn up a lot of good money attempting to advocate for "deficient" members from doing dumb-a## things. Assuming your account is accurate, actually writing (a clear, unambiguous record) about and supporting organized work slowdowns qualifies for that category.

The term "private bulletin board" is bogus. People write incredibly dumb things thinking they're somehow "hidden" because it's a "private bulletin board."

 

Old UCAL CA, you make very good points. I don't know if anyone acted based on their posts. I argued a completely different tack which, fortunately, was legal. I won't go into details.

I've written a lot of incredibly dumb things thinking that I was 'safe'. I will no longer make that assumption.

 

I'd love to continue talking about how United and ALPA failed the 2172 and how they had to talk and get information amongst themselves. But this thread is about how United and ALPA failed the 1437 and how we are talking and getting information amongst ourselves...

I received some second-hand information on the numbers, but my sources are very good.

The first 350 pilots filled classes into early December with an acceptance rate averaging about 6-to-1. The acceptance rate for the next 250 (which represents this latest round) has gone up to 2.5-to-1. This means that 100 pilots accepted the new hire position. This brings the total acceptance numbers up to about 150 pilots and fills classes into late February 2012. This does not include the pilots who elected to bypass and may be interested in getting back in.

I got no indication either way of another round of letters going out. I hope this helps.

 

OLD CAL CA,

LL; There are PLENTY of opportunities for LEGAL and UNORGANIZED INDIVIDUAL responses to a company that places absolutely no value at all on goodwill toward employees. Remember the CONTRACT WORKS BOTH WAYS...

SP

 

Red Eye, by my calculations, the junior furloughee receiving a recall letter would be (1 Jul 11 seniority list) #6829. Smith, CD. Hire date 3/27/00.

Assuming that they send out 200 or more letters in this next batch, I will be in the next group of furloughees receiving letters. I'll post if I get one, and I'll post if I don't get one if someone else receives a recall letter.

Where did you hear that 100 accepted recall in the latest batch? That's a higher rate than I anticipated. And yes, I agree that some previous bypassers will look to be recalled.

... as far as up-to-date recall information, you'll probably get it faster on these forums than through official channels. I'm unable to send you a PM due to you not having 10 posts. If you can set up a 'dummy' e-mail account and post the address, I'll send you some information.

 

I hate to beat a dead horse so I won't after this, but, this is not a recall.

 

You're correct. I knew that as I was typing it but my brain was engaged in another topic and I chose haste over being factually correct.

 

My numbers came intially from Christi, but where that chain lead to me I can't say. I'm not being coy, just don't have permission to tell and I respect privacy.

 

Red Eye, I understand. Tried to PM you, no dice.

 

Technically no it is not a recall, but more like a recall reservation. The day the jcba is signed those that went to CAL from UAL would be in affect recalled on that day. (Hopefully the jnc gets longevity for furloughs.) A recall via CAL is more likely then a recall from the mother ship.