Originally Posted by untied
(Post 1373388)
The 767-300 is, by definition, a widebody.
Look at past SLI awards and you'll see that hourly rate does not effect "WB" vs "NB" arguments. I know Jay POS was really trying to screw us with pay banding, but it won't help your case. How can your career expectations be better on an airplane that pays no more?? Come on, use your head. |
Why is Jay P. to blame for the pay banding that UAL pilots voted for?
|
Originally Posted by thor2j
(Post 1373681)
Well which is it. Most junior UAL guys jump up and down with the "merger policy has changed" for longevity. The pay banding will do the same to the 763 status. Hasn't been done like this , ever! Can't have it both ways.
How can your career expectations be better on an airplane that pays no more?? Come on, use your head. Pay banding has been proven to have NO effect on SLI where the 757/767 are concerned (look at the DAL SLI). We will have it "both ways".....both points are valid. |
Originally Posted by Ottopilot
(Post 1373684)
Why is Jay P. to blame for the pay banding that UAL pilots voted for?
We were fighting Jay P and management....not a great position to be in. Saying pilots "voted for" different items in the contract is WEAK. We took the good with the bad to move forward....there's PLENTY that nobody wanted (Scope giveaway, work rule concessions, etc.) I'm sick of stupid comments like "well, we must have WANTED moveable days off for line holders since we voted for it!" Ridiculous... |
I'm a little confused as to why some think "furloughed guys" should just be stapled to the bottom of the list.
I was working at UAL in 2009.....well after hiring stopped at CAL. I have 9 years of seat time at UAL...to think that would be fair to staple me under a 2008 CAL guy....is kind of a stretch don't ya think? Re-read ALPA merger policy again. |
Originally Posted by Sonny Crockett
(Post 1373736)
I'm a little confused as to why some think "furloughed guys" should just be stapled to the bottom of the list.
|
Originally Posted by Sonny Crockett
(Post 1373736)
I'm a little confused as to why some think "furloughed guys" should just be stapled to the bottom of the list.
I was working at UAL in 2009.....well after hiring stopped at CAL. I have 9 years of seat time at UAL...to think that would be fair to staple me under a 2008 CAL guy....is kind of a stretch don't ya think? Re-read ALPA merger policy again. |
Everyone talks about career expectations and longevity but fails to mention status and category with regard to furlough pilots. Status = Ca. Fo. Unemployed.. it will be interesting to see what weight is placed on each item that they must look at.
|
Originally Posted by Sonny Crockett
(Post 1373736)
I'm a little confused as to why some think "furloughed guys" should just be stapled to the bottom of the list.
I was working at UAL in 2009.....well after hiring stopped at CAL. I have 9 years of seat time at UAL...to think that would be fair to staple me under a 2008 CAL guy..... Longevity is so relative. 1 year of longevity at CAL was worth 5 (maybe more) at UAL in terms of what it got you in movement and QOL. Becareful what you ask for... |
Originally Posted by Sonny Crockett
(Post 1373736)
I'm a little confused as to why some think "furloughed guys" should just be stapled to the bottom of the list.
I was working at UAL in 2009.....well after hiring stopped at CAL. I have 9 years of seat time at UAL...to think that would be fair to staple me under a 2008 CAL guy....is kind of a stretch don't ya think? Re-read ALPA merger policy again. I get what you are saying but the blurb about not being an active pilot at time of merger is the thinking behind it. Why would a furlough pilot go before an active pilot. Is it tough I know but this is a reality. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:43 PM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands