|
As Dave mentioned, the line swine just wanted a new CEO with a vision for the airline. And not the vision Fletch had in mind. But Tilton made it crystal clear from day one that UAL was merging once he reorganized and eviscerated the employees in court.
Watch Frontline - "Can You Afford to Retire to Retire" to see how he did it and how much duplicity the banks had in the deal. Avail on the web. So, here we are. Two big unhappy families. |
10min 16 sec is the most important comment on the Frontline video. They got less, but what did it buy them?
|
Originally Posted by Really
(Post 1502096)
Let it go LAX! It's over!
|
Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
(Post 1502544)
As of this morning, I will give you 718 reasons why it is not over. Home
|
So here's the interesting question for me: If the lawsuit is thrown out at some future date will these 718 CAL pilots finally admit their logic is flawed and they are looking at the world with an unreasonable bias.
The ISL was created using a mathematical algorithm that weighted everything required under ALPA merger policy including the newest consideration "Longevity", and they want to argue that it was "biased"? Good-luck. Can't wait to see the results of this one. Put me down as predicting it gets tossed out by the first judge that reads the opening brief. Under the RLA, courts may review an arbitration panel’s award based upon the following specific grounds: (i) failure to comply with the requirements of the RLA; (ii) failure to conform or confine itself to matters within the scope of its jurisdiction; or (iii) fraud or corruption by a member of the arbitration panel granting the award. 45 U.S.C. § 153. This law was written in 1926, and did not foresee the problems involved in merging two seniority lists. It has not been modified to correct this deficiency. It doesn't make our task impossible, but it certainly is a very high standard, and it will no doubt be an uphill battle that may even challenge our collective Will at times. There are no guarantees that we can win, even if we can be heard by a Court. The only guarantee is that of a good old fashioned slugfest that the L-UAL pilots love so dear - and is one that our pilot group has needed for a very long time. As an end note, I'd like to say "Thank-you" over and over to the 4000+ CAL pilots that are not joining in this silliness. I hope that together we can help smooth the feathers of the 718 so our future lives as UAL pilots can be better. |
Originally Posted by Sunvox
(Post 1502574)
So here's the interesting question for me: If the lawsuit is thrown out at some future date will these 718 CAL pilots finally admit their logic is flawed and they are looking at the world with an unreasonable bias.
The ISL was created using a mathematical algorithm that weighted everything required under ALPA merger policy including the newest consideration "Longevity", and they want to argue that it was "biased"? Good-luck. Can't wait to see the results of this one. Put me down as predicting it gets tossed out by the first judge that reads the opening brief. As an end note, I'd like to say "Thank-you" over and over to the 4000+ CAL pilots that are not joining in this silliness. I hope that together we can help smooth the feathers of the 718 so our future lives as UAL pilots can be better. They aren't going to win because they can't even count. Their site says "Seeking Justice for 5,000+ Continental Pilots" but there never were that many. Unless they are counting the L-UAL pilots that were on their list only because they were flying L-CAL airplanes. Unless the "Justice" they are talking about is stapling them to the bottom. LAX |
Originally Posted by Sunvox
(Post 1502574)
So here's the interesting question for me: If the lawsuit is thrown out at some future date will these 718 CAL pilots finally admit their logic is flawed and they are looking at the world with an unreasonable bias.
Lastly, one can be a part of a system and feel that as a minority their rights are being ignored and therefore they should seek help outside the "system". Craig believed his rights were being ignored and he believed ALPA was ignoring his rights. Just as Martin Luther King went outside the "system" to seek justice so to Craig went outside the system to solve a perceived wrong against his minority. However, it appears you are treating this suit with a double standard. You thought Craig Gullaksen was akin to MLK for his lawsuit. Yet the CAL pilots need to acknowledge their logic is flawed and unreasonable. Perhaps both the CAL pilots and Craig Gullaksen can buy a billboard by the Hyatt at ORD and post their....what did you call it "mea culpa"?:rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by Lambourne
(Post 1502648)
First I think the CAL pilot are grasping at straws and will wind up making an attorney rich if they contribute. It is their money and they can throw it away if they wish.
However, it appears you are treating this suit with a double standard. You thought Craig Gullaksen was akin to MLK for his lawsuit. Yet the CAL pilots need to acknowledge their logic is flawed and unreasonable. Perhaps both the CAL pilots and Craig Gullaksen can buy a billboard by the Hyatt at ORD and post their....what did you call it "mea culpa"?:rolleyes: There are two separate issues at hand. One being the merits of the lawsuits and the other being the rights of the individuals to pursue a legal remedy. In the case of Craig's lawsuit I was clear from the beginning that I felt the case was logically flawed, had no merit, would quickly be dismissed, and was divisive to the pilot group as a whole. This is the same sentiment I expressed in my comment above regarding the Legacy CAL lawsuit. The MLK reference, to which you have thrice now harkened back, was written in a post regarding the personal attack on Craig. Both the signatories to Craig's lawsuit and the signatories to the Legacy CAL lawsuit are minorities in the ISL process and if they feel they have been wronged then they have every legal right to pursue a remedy. I do not look upon them with any less respect because they chose to hire a lawyer. I am saddened by the efforts, and I feel strongly they will not succeed, but I did not impugn Craig's person for his efforts, nor did I impugn the Legacy CAL pilots personally in my post above. Iin that sense I find my standards to be the same in both cases. |
Originally Posted by Sunvox
(Post 1502796)
Well, I must admit I am pleased to see that we can find some common ground with regards to the CAL pilots grasping at straws, but sadly I must disagree with your logic regarding "double standards".
There are two separate issues at hand. One being the merits of the lawsuits and the other being the rights of the individuals to pursue a legal remedy. In the case of Craig's lawsuit I was clear from the beginning that I felt the case was logically flawed, had no merit, would quickly be dismissed, and was divisive to the pilot group as a whole. This is the same sentiment I expressed in my comment above regarding the Legacy CAL lawsuit. The MLK reference, to which you have thrice now harkened back, was written in a post regarding the personal attack on Craig. Both the signatories to Craig's lawsuit and the signatories to the Legacy CAL lawsuit are minorities in the ISL process and if they feel they have been wronged then they have every legal right to pursue a remedy. I do not look upon them with any less respect because they chose to hire a lawyer. I am saddened by the efforts, and I feel strongly they will not succeed, but I did not impugn Craig's person for his efforts, nor did I impugn the Legacy CAL pilots personally in my post above. Iin that sense I find my standards to be the same in both cases. |
FWIW, I understand that there are not "718" members to this possible lawsuit. Nor are there even 718 contributors to the cause.
From what I understand, to be able to read the posts in that FB group, one had to be added. Much like this forum. In my opinion, that does not automatically make them agree with the actions of the group. Now, if it were me and I didn't agree, I would certainly consider having myself removed. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:31 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands