Furloughed = "robust career expectations"?
04-15-2013, 06:43 AM
#81
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Originally Posted by AxlF16
Then let me ask you a question. Why is the CAL MEC fighting TO THIS DAY to hand over an accurate seniority list? The hubris of your leadership could be a problem for you.
You're telling me that a Federally appointed, Tri-Panel of Arbitrators, are entering into an SLI Arbitration in Washington DC today with an "INACCURATE SENIORITY LIST" that has been vetted as 'accurate' prior to this hearing?
That boarder's Crazy Talk, mostly by your conjecture & "opinion". I highly doubt this sanctioned circus would have even been embarked upon without the confirmed/exchanged/valid lists being presented/review. I'm sure you understand that there's a certain level of due diligence, and protocol that takes place prior to something as serious as this type of exercise kicking off. I guarantee VALID/Accurate list's were presented by both sides prior these proceeding. Your statement ^^above^^ appears to be merely your "opinion", not fact. The same method of "opinion" that BOTH sides presented in their Opening Statements.
If you have honest/concrete/valid evidence that CAL's List is NOT Accurate/VALID.......Why aren't you at the opener's today stating that stance with conviction to the ua MEC and their merger comm?
04-15-2013, 06:43 AM
#83
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
Originally Posted by liquid
Of course is was to further our argument. Duh. Our merger committee is doing their job. How about we flip the question, why was your committee SO against releasing the data?
04-15-2013, 06:47 AM
#84
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
Originally Posted by SoCalGuy
Wait.....
You're telling me that a a Federally appointed, Tri-Panel of Arbitrators, are entering into an SLI Arbitration in Washington DC today with an "INACCURATE SENIORITY LIST" that has been vetted as 'accurate' prior to this hearing?
That boarder's Crazy Talk, mostly by your conjecture & "opinion". I highly doubt this sanctioned circus would have even been embarked upon without the confirmed/exchanged/valid lists being presented/review. I'm sure you understand that there's a certain level of due diligence, and protocol that takes place prior to something as serious as this type of exercise. I guarantee VALID/Accurate list's were presented by both sides prior these proceeding. Your statement ^^above^^ appears to be merely your "opinion", not fact. The same method of "opinion" that BOTH sides presented in their Opening Statements.
If you have honest/concrete/valid evidence that CAL's List is NOT Accurate/VALID.......Why aren't you at the opener's today stating that stance with conviction to the ua MEC and their merger comm?
You're telling me that a a Federally appointed, Tri-Panel of Arbitrators, are entering into an SLI Arbitration in Washington DC today with an "INACCURATE SENIORITY LIST" that has been vetted as 'accurate' prior to this hearing?
That boarder's Crazy Talk, mostly by your conjecture & "opinion". I highly doubt this sanctioned circus would have even been embarked upon without the confirmed/exchanged/valid lists being presented/review. I'm sure you understand that there's a certain level of due diligence, and protocol that takes place prior to something as serious as this type of exercise. I guarantee VALID/Accurate list's were presented by both sides prior these proceeding. Your statement ^^above^^ appears to be merely your "opinion", not fact. The same method of "opinion" that BOTH sides presented in their Opening Statements.
If you have honest/concrete/valid evidence that CAL's List is NOT Accurate/VALID.......Why aren't you at the opener's today stating that stance with conviction to the ua MEC and their merger comm?
Are concerned about something in particular? That was quite an outburst...
Not only do you want to pretend that Longevity isn't a factor, you want to obscure the data so as to make USING longevity seem unworkable. I hope that little gimmick blows up right in your face. Nice (but weak) try.
Oh..and OF COURSE IT'S MY OPINION. Just like your posts are your opinions. Welcome to the internet.
04-15-2013, 06:55 AM
#85
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Originally Posted by AxlF16
Are concerned about something in particular? That was quite an outburst...
Not only do you want to pretend that Longevity isn't a factor, you want to obscure the data so as to make USING longevity seem unworkable. I hope that little gimmick blows up right in your face. Nice (but weak) try.
Not only do you want to pretend that Longevity isn't a factor, you want to obscure the data so as to make USING longevity seem unworkable. I hope that little gimmick blows up right in your face. Nice (but weak) try.
If you honestly feel what you stated above, how come your not there in person to share your convictions with your MEC/ Merger Comm on the above you shared earlier???
Again....."Opinions" are good, I respect that. However when someone tries to pass something like that over as "fact", especially concerning something as large as this, it just makes your stance/argument/credibility that much "less".
As said earlier......"You're better than that Axl".
04-15-2013, 06:56 AM
#86
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 737 fo
Posts: 908
Originally Posted by Sunvox
Now to all the CAL pilots who are so adamant that furloughees can never have a place at the table I ask 2 questions:
1) Can you put yourself in the shoes of a furloughee and argue their case in full honesty?
2) What if . . . just what if . . . in this particular case I could provide incontrovertible evidence that the company chose to furlough the UAL pilots BECAUSE OF THE MERGER, . . . .
IF and only IF that were true would you change your mind?
Just wondering . . .
Remember this is a forum where nothing we say changes the outcome and is merely here for your entertainment or relief or whatever . . .
so I'm just wondering how you respond.
1) Can you put yourself in the shoes of a furloughee and argue their case in full honesty?
2) What if . . . just what if . . . in this particular case I could provide incontrovertible evidence that the company chose to furlough the UAL pilots BECAUSE OF THE MERGER, . . . .
IF and only IF that were true would you change your mind?
Just wondering . . .
Remember this is a forum where nothing we say changes the outcome and is merely here for your entertainment or relief or whatever . . .
so I'm just wondering how you respond.
04-15-2013, 07:00 AM
#88
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by AxlF16
Do you actually read the posts? Did you read the post I was replying to? If you can't grasp the context then I can't help. BTW, I'm not interested in your juvenile argument style. duh.....
I have a hard time reading your anti CAL rants, very typical of your type on this board.
I'll ask again:
Why was your MEC against releasing the wage data?
04-15-2013, 07:03 AM
#90
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Posts: 536
Originally Posted by SoCalGuy
No need to reside behind your veiled stance above.....
.................................................. ....
As said earlier......"You're better than that Axl".
.................................................. ....
As said earlier......"You're better than that Axl".
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
