Say it ain't so - Pierce!
04-12-2013, 08:17 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by Staller
Side with the cal guys if you want but look at the bombshell they just dropped. They will do you far more harm to you in the long run. For the most part, the UAL pilots have been fighting for you guys. No sure why LOA 25 really came about but we'll see.
Nice job with having three posts in a span of so many minutes. I can't type that fast.
With regard to siding with LCAL, you're not reading me correctly. I have no illusion LCAL is out to win for their side i.e. screw us....again. That's their responsibility and therefore I have no interest in "siding" with them. It doesn't matter anyway since, as usual, I get no vote. I was merely pointing out Heppner lackes the shining armor and white steed of a true hero. He's a politician who sides with the widebody captains at the expense of the entire pilot group. Therefore, I'd rather he not speak on my behalf at an SLI hearing.
04-12-2013, 08:38 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 137
Originally Posted by Staller
Names if you wish - Pierce and company just dropped a bomb on unity. CAPT with CAPT and F/O with F/O.
Thank you by the way -
Thank you by the way -
If everyone is where they want to be on the respective list as far as their seniority on said list would procure per their legacy company, the CA with CA and FO with FO method should work..there will be the cutoffs for training per the SLI deadline for training and the voluntary furlough issue, but in most cases this solution should suffice and prevent any windfalls on either side. Most likely this will allow people to relatively stay where they are on the combined list with some small % margin of error or correction
04-12-2013, 08:44 AM
#15
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Posts: 536
Originally Posted by Freddriver5
Nice job with having three posts in a span of so many minutes. I can't type that fast.
With regard to siding with LCAL, you're not reading me correctly. I have no illusion LCAL is out to win for their side i.e. screw us....again. That's their responsibility and therefore I have no interest in "siding" with them. It doesn't matter anyway since, as usual, I get no vote. I was merely pointing out Heppner lackes the shining armor and white steed of a true hero. He's a politician who sides with the widebody captains at the expense of the entire pilot group. Therefore, I'd rather he not speak on my behalf at an SLI hearing.
With regard to siding with LCAL, you're not reading me correctly. I have no illusion LCAL is out to win for their side i.e. screw us....again. That's their responsibility and therefore I have no interest in "siding" with them. It doesn't matter anyway since, as usual, I get no vote. I was merely pointing out Heppner lackes the shining armor and white steed of a true hero. He's a politician who sides with the widebody captains at the expense of the entire pilot group. Therefore, I'd rather he not speak on my behalf at an SLI hearing.
04-12-2013, 08:49 AM
#16
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Posts: 536
Originally Posted by vspeed
On every bid posting there is the phrase...bid what you want
If everyone is where they want to be on the respective list as far as their seniority on said list would procure per their legacy company, the CA with CA and FO with FO method should work..there will be the cutoffs for training per the SLI deadline for training and the voluntary furlough issue, but in most cases this solution should suffice and prevent any windfalls on either side. Most likely this will allow people to relatively stay where they are on the combined list with some small % margin of error or correction
If everyone is where they want to be on the respective list as far as their seniority on said list would procure per their legacy company, the CA with CA and FO with FO method should work..there will be the cutoffs for training per the SLI deadline for training and the voluntary furlough issue, but in most cases this solution should suffice and prevent any windfalls on either side. Most likely this will allow people to relatively stay where they are on the combined list with some small % margin of error or correction
04-12-2013, 08:49 AM
#17
Not retiring avatar
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Position: 777 CAP
Posts: 768
Originally Posted by vspeed
On every bid posting there is the phrase...bid what you want
If everyone is where they want to be on the respective list as far as their seniority on said list would procure per their legacy company, the CA with CA and FO with FO method should work..there will be the cutoffs for training per the SLI deadline for training and the voluntary furlough issue, but in most cases this solution should suffice and prevent any windfalls on either side. Most likely this will allow people to relatively stay where they are on the combined list with some small % margin of error or correction
If everyone is where they want to be on the respective list as far as their seniority on said list would procure per their legacy company, the CA with CA and FO with FO method should work..there will be the cutoffs for training per the SLI deadline for training and the voluntary furlough issue, but in most cases this solution should suffice and prevent any windfalls on either side. Most likely this will allow people to relatively stay where they are on the combined list with some small % margin of error or correction
04-12-2013, 08:53 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 137
Originally Posted by Staller
I know you spent a lot of time writing this so I'm not going to laugh at you but ARE YOU SERIOUS?
and most likely the arbitration will look at this the same way...it is the easiest, most cost effective, and fair way - no windfalls on either side...which means cost saving for the company and manpower planning cohesion
04-12-2013, 08:54 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 137
Originally Posted by Monkeyfly
Perfect solution. Let's see... 2005 hire 737 CAP right on top of 1985 hire 747 F/O. Stapling approx. 7000 pilots. Yep, sounds good, where do we sign?
- and it's not 7000 pilots, there are 1500 or so in both groups who are on various out of sequence positions versus their capable holding seniority for one variable or another, quality of life, commuting etc...A perfect world theoretical solution never happens, people bid out of their seniority all the time
Last edited by vspeed; 04-12-2013 at 09:05 AM.
04-12-2013, 09:04 AM
#20
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Posts: 536
Originally Posted by vspeed
100%
and most likely the arbitration will look at this the same way...it is the easiest, most cost effective, and fair way - no windfalls on either side...which means cost saving for the company and manpower planning cohesion
and most likely the arbitration will look at this the same way...it is the easiest, most cost effective, and fair way - no windfalls on either side...which means cost saving for the company and manpower planning cohesion
"which means cost saving for the company and manpower planning cohesion" Got to love ya' - for a high school drop you've come a long way. One point, the arbitrator will not look at either of these things. Those are a management and management want-a-be thing. Keep the dream alive we are counting on you.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
