CAL proposed SLI posted on UAL ALPA site
05-01-2013, 06:42 AM
#641
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,007
Sorry sarge not worth my time anymore it has been beaten to death, if you are comfortable with it enjoy, the company will target another group next time and beat you up some more. Maybe the no voters had no game as you say but I can tell you that yes voters had no balls and are going to get hammered again next time around, hey let me guess you on the airbus? lol
It is all about identity....
the CAL pilots wanted a CBA that reflected their vision of what they think an airline pilot should be... and this JCBA didn't match it.... what was really important to the CAL pilots was the belief that instead of being FAR work rules for dollars pilots, the merger was going to give them a shot at Delta +1. No longer were they going to be the Legacy B carrier (embroidered wings and sad retirement print out paper)...they wanted to be an A player. Sounds good.... The idea of walking the terminal and looking at the Delta guys with uber pride... was real....
The NO voters were never about pragmatism, the real world economy or reality so to speak... they were about a vision of the profession... which is admirable actually..... just not realistic.
05-01-2013, 07:05 AM
#642
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: B-777 left
Posts: 1,415
It hasn't been beaten to death... the No voters never spoke to the issue... yet something is compelling them to vote NO.... interesting actually...
It is all about identity....
the CAL pilots wanted a CBA that reflected their vision of what they think an airline pilot should be... and this JCBA didn't match it.... what was really important to the CAL pilots was the belief that instead of being FAR work rules for dollars pilots, the merger was going to give them a shot at Delta +1. No longer were they going to be the Legacy B carrier (embroidered wings and sad retirement print out paper)...they wanted to be an A player. Sounds good.... The idea of walking the terminal and looking at the Delta guys with uber pride... was real....
The NO voters were never about pragmatism, the real world economy or reality so to speak... they were about a vision of the profession... which is admirable actually..... just not realistic.
It is all about identity....
the CAL pilots wanted a CBA that reflected their vision of what they think an airline pilot should be... and this JCBA didn't match it.... what was really important to the CAL pilots was the belief that instead of being FAR work rules for dollars pilots, the merger was going to give them a shot at Delta +1. No longer were they going to be the Legacy B carrier (embroidered wings and sad retirement print out paper)...they wanted to be an A player. Sounds good.... The idea of walking the terminal and looking at the Delta guys with uber pride... was real....
The NO voters were never about pragmatism, the real world economy or reality so to speak... they were about a vision of the profession... which is admirable actually..... just not realistic.
05-01-2013, 08:25 AM
#643
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: 756 Left Side
Posts: 1,629
Because, despite the negatives of the TA, no one, not even the few well spoken adamant NO voters could provide a compelling plan of action to reconcile the TA negatives. The JNC did their job and that was it....
4 way negotiations: UAL MEC/CAL MEC/UCH/NMB
The adamant NO votes got to play both sides... they were reasonably assured that the TA was going to pass... this allowed them to display their insolence and bravado towards the TA.... and afterwards, allows them to say 'told ya so....'
I wanted to vote NO, but the ROI wasn't there.... making it an irresponsible choice..... IMHO.
4 way negotiations: UAL MEC/CAL MEC/UCH/NMB
The adamant NO votes got to play both sides... they were reasonably assured that the TA was going to pass... this allowed them to display their insolence and bravado towards the TA.... and afterwards, allows them to say 'told ya so....'
I wanted to vote NO, but the ROI wasn't there.... making it an irresponsible choice..... IMHO.
Only new news to add is this-
Our company just ordered at least 30 new aircraft worth roughly 900 million, up to 2.9 Billion! (depends on which news source you believe).
Point is.. the company took OUR money (not meaning Pilots, I mean United) and is purchasing aircraft that will not be operated by OUR employee groups.
It goes to show that there is/was more money left at the table.
It goes to show that we got suckered.... [Why is there no clause in our contract that states Aircraft purchased and owned by UCH/UAL will be flown and operated by Pilots on the United Seniority List?]
You will believe what you want, I will believe what I want. It's obvious that we will never be able to change each other's opinion.
Voted NO, would do it again.
Motch
05-01-2013, 09:06 AM
#645
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 737 Cap
Posts: 451
It goes to show that there is/was more money left at the table.
It goes to show that we got suckered.... [Why is there no clause in our contract that states Aircraft purchased and owned by UCH/UAL will be flown and operated by Pilots on the United Seniority List?]
You will believe what you want, I will believe what I want. It's obvious that we will never be able to change each other's opinion.
Voted NO, would do it again.
Motch
It goes to show that we got suckered.... [Why is there no clause in our contract that states Aircraft purchased and owned by UCH/UAL will be flown and operated by Pilots on the United Seniority List?]
You will believe what you want, I will believe what I want. It's obvious that we will never be able to change each other's opinion.
Voted NO, would do it again.
Motch
Scott
05-01-2013, 09:32 AM
#646
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,007
I am not going to retype my reasons and response for a "NO" Vote. It's already on here (in old Threads).
Only new news to add is this-
Our company just ordered at least 30 new aircraft worth roughly 900 million, up to 2.9 Billion! (depends on which news source you believe).
Point is.. the company took OUR money (not meaning Pilots, I mean United) and is purchasing aircraft that will not be operated by OUR employee groups.
It goes to show that there is/was more money left at the table.
It goes to show that we got suckered.... [Why is there no clause in our contract that states Aircraft purchased and owned by UCH/UAL will be flown and operated by Pilots on the United Seniority List?]
You will believe what you want, I will believe what I want. It's obvious that we will never be able to change each other's opinion.
Voted NO, would do it again.
Motch
Only new news to add is this-
Our company just ordered at least 30 new aircraft worth roughly 900 million, up to 2.9 Billion! (depends on which news source you believe).
Point is.. the company took OUR money (not meaning Pilots, I mean United) and is purchasing aircraft that will not be operated by OUR employee groups.
It goes to show that there is/was more money left at the table.
It goes to show that we got suckered.... [Why is there no clause in our contract that states Aircraft purchased and owned by UCH/UAL will be flown and operated by Pilots on the United Seniority List?]
You will believe what you want, I will believe what I want. It's obvious that we will never be able to change each other's opinion.
Voted NO, would do it again.
Motch
05-01-2013, 09:57 AM
#647
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
That is simply incorrect. There were a number of letters that identified our growing leverage and the doable contractual improvements. Maybe it is a guarantee that you are really looking for. Sorry, but there is no such thing in life.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad how easy pilots are to fool with false choices. Our jobs are to mitigate risk and that mindset unfortunately leads to bad contractual choices.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad how easy pilots are to fool with false choices. Our jobs are to mitigate risk and that mindset unfortunately leads to bad contractual choices.
05-01-2013, 10:03 AM
#648
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,007
That is simply incorrect. There were a number of letters that identified our growing leverage and the doable contractual improvements. Maybe it is a guarantee that you are really looking for. Sorry, but there is no such thing in life.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad how easy pilots are to fool with false choices. Our jobs are to mitigate risk and that mindset unfortunately leads to bad contractual choices.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad how easy pilots are to fool with false choices. Our jobs are to mitigate risk and that mindset unfortunately leads to bad contractual choices.
if these letters exist, and are compelling then you wouldn't be the first I heard of it... or I have read the letters and they fit your reality but not mine... meaning they weren't compelling....
05-01-2013, 10:17 AM
#649
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
confirmation bias
"It is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human understanding to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives." --Francis Bacon
Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs. For example, if you believe that during a full moon there is an increase in admissions to the emergency room where you work, you will take notice of admissions during a full moon, but be inattentive to the moon when admissions occur during other nights of the month. A tendency to do this over time unjustifiably strengthens your belief in the relationship between the full moon and accidents and other lunar effects.
This tendency to give more attention and weight to data that support our beliefs than we do to contrary data is especially pernicious when our beliefs are little more than prejudices. If our beliefs are firmly established on solid evidence and valid confirmatory experiments, the tendency to give more attention and weight to data that fit with our beliefs should not lead us astray as a rule. Of course, if we become blinded to evidence truly refuting a favored hypothesis, we have crossed the line from reasonableness to closed-mindedness.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that people generally give an excessive amount of value to confirmatory information, that is, to positive or supportive data. The "most likely reason for the excessive influence of confirmatory information is that it is easier to deal with cognitively" (Gilovich 1993). It is much easier to see how a piece of data supports a position than it is to see how it might count against the position. Consider a typical ESP experiment or a seemingly clairvoyant dream: Successes are often unambiguous or data are easily massaged to count as successes, while negative instances require intellectual effort to even see them as negative or to consider them as significant. The tendency to give more attention and weight to the positive and the confirmatory has been shown to influence memory. When digging into our memories for data relevant to a position, we are more likely to recall data that confirms the position (ibid.).
Researchers are sometimes guilty of confirmation bias by setting up experiments or framing their data in ways that will tend to confirm their hypotheses. They compound the problem by proceeding in ways that avoid dealing with data that would contradict their hypotheses. For example, some parapsychologists used to engage in optional starting and stopping in their ESP research. Experimenters might avoid or reduce confirmation bias by collaborating in experimental design with colleagues who hold contrary hypotheses, as Richard Wiseman (skeptic) and Marilyn Schlitz (proponent) have done.* Individuals have to continually remind themselves of this tendency and actively seek out data contrary to their beliefs. Since this is unnatural, it appears that the ordinary person is doomed to bias.
"It is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human understanding to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives." --Francis Bacon
Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs. For example, if you believe that during a full moon there is an increase in admissions to the emergency room where you work, you will take notice of admissions during a full moon, but be inattentive to the moon when admissions occur during other nights of the month. A tendency to do this over time unjustifiably strengthens your belief in the relationship between the full moon and accidents and other lunar effects.
This tendency to give more attention and weight to data that support our beliefs than we do to contrary data is especially pernicious when our beliefs are little more than prejudices. If our beliefs are firmly established on solid evidence and valid confirmatory experiments, the tendency to give more attention and weight to data that fit with our beliefs should not lead us astray as a rule. Of course, if we become blinded to evidence truly refuting a favored hypothesis, we have crossed the line from reasonableness to closed-mindedness.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that people generally give an excessive amount of value to confirmatory information, that is, to positive or supportive data. The "most likely reason for the excessive influence of confirmatory information is that it is easier to deal with cognitively" (Gilovich 1993). It is much easier to see how a piece of data supports a position than it is to see how it might count against the position. Consider a typical ESP experiment or a seemingly clairvoyant dream: Successes are often unambiguous or data are easily massaged to count as successes, while negative instances require intellectual effort to even see them as negative or to consider them as significant. The tendency to give more attention and weight to the positive and the confirmatory has been shown to influence memory. When digging into our memories for data relevant to a position, we are more likely to recall data that confirms the position (ibid.).
Researchers are sometimes guilty of confirmation bias by setting up experiments or framing their data in ways that will tend to confirm their hypotheses. They compound the problem by proceeding in ways that avoid dealing with data that would contradict their hypotheses. For example, some parapsychologists used to engage in optional starting and stopping in their ESP research. Experimenters might avoid or reduce confirmation bias by collaborating in experimental design with colleagues who hold contrary hypotheses, as Richard Wiseman (skeptic) and Marilyn Schlitz (proponent) have done.* Individuals have to continually remind themselves of this tendency and actively seek out data contrary to their beliefs. Since this is unnatural, it appears that the ordinary person is doomed to bias.
05-01-2013, 11:33 AM
#650
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: 756 Left Side
Posts: 1,629
I'm pretty sure you are able to use the search function on this board. Merely look up my previous posts.
I'm not going to waste my time rewriting everything I posted from Nov-Dec 2012.
Motch
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
