And you are either a scab or management.

 

If anyone has wondered why Smisek has written out a check for $40 million, look no farther then the above post. Seems he will never see past his nose so its a galactic waste of time trying to enlighten him.

Good thing he wasn't at UA in May 1985.

 

I vote for schoolyard idiot. This clown actually thinks he's getting us riled up with his posts. The strange thing is that HE'S got the nerve to call others immature. Some folks are beyond reachable, you just have to work around them.

 

Got over the anger long ago or I would not still be here. To me, it's just business and the equation is seriously out of balance. If I had never experienced the ESOP, never had an industry-leading C2000, never was proud to say I was a United Pilot, I might be as easily satisfied as you appear to be. We've been treated like dirt for the last 10 years AFTER being on top of the dogpile, so excuse us LUAL guys if we're not so willing to adopt the apparent LCAL culture of taking whatever management deigns to hand out. We want you guys to join us in getting back to the top, but if you think things are just great around here then we really don't have anything more to discuss.

The company paid just the other week. They called me at dinner time for JRM on a redeye that night, call went to voice mail (never answer 847 calls). Reaping what they've sown as the flight cancelled.

The only time I have a scowl on my face in the terminal is when I come across a scab. You didn't help Frank Lorenzo in his time of need, did you?

 

Exactly. The only problem is that you're talking to a thick, thick, brick wall.

 

It is hilarious that anytime a L-CAL pilot does not agree with what some L-UAL pilot has to say they are branded as a scab. It's as if L-UAL has eradicated any scab element from their pilot list and hold all others in contempt. What is even more hilarious is how you guys tout such unionistic attributes but seem to be on the losing side of every issue for how long??? It's all very confusing. That is why I pay my dues, attend LC meetings, vote, wear my ALPA pin, and be as professional as I can be. I don't think that makes me a scab now does it. I trust that my LC officers and MEC are doing the right thing and I am thankful for that. I don't look for a conspiracy behind every stone.

Lastly, I have never been junior manned as long as I've been here at L-CAL. The fact that you don't answer the phone is obviously important to you - but I don't care, lol.

 

^^^^
| | | |

Dorkus Maximus.

 

As Pierce whispered "money's on the nightstand honey" in your ear. Did that happen?

ha!

 

Wow, that was long- winded. All you had to say was "No". lol

 

The reason we are on the losing side of some battles (as you couch it) is because of exactly the kind of scab-like behavior you condemn us for calling out. Which is it? Are you advocating for the scab-like behavior, or are you condemning it? From your post it almost reads like you're advocating it.

Losing battles that are fought righteously are not losses. Being able to hold one's head high, knowing that you are on the right side, the moral side, is a whole lot better than slinking into bed with your enemy (management) and sucking them off for a few pieces of silver, even if it means that you can run around and brag to your friends with your shiny new money. Truth be told, we know what you did in that bed.

The United pilots do not lambast the CAL pilots. THe United pilots are disgusted with Pierce because of his behavior. Read that again. Because of HIS behavior. He has acted scab-like in abandoning his commitments to the UALMEC, pilots, and the future for ALL of us.

Not sure how long you've been in this game, but if it's been a while, nice pretty statements like paying dues, going to meetings, and trusting your reps, may be motherhood and apple pie, but it demonstrates that one is either naive or intentionally propagandistic. We have seen far too many snake oil salesmen, individuals like Pierce who say, "Trust me," who have sold us out and screwed us over. Ronald Ragan said it best, "Trust but verify." It seems that you would vilify those who subscribe to such a tact which raises the question exactly of "why?" an individual would do that, especially once someone like Pierce outs himself:

1. The defender is a blind Pierce loyalist
2. The defender is naive and living in a pollyana wonderland
3. The defender has an agenda more aligned with management and believes that those reading his drivel will buy it ... infiltration, if you will.
4. The defender is a contrarian and looking for attention

So which is it?