horrido27

Scott.. I believe you spend enough time on this forum to know that I attempted to Recall my Reps (especially my FO Rep) back in Feb2013.

I did this for failure to follow a resolution that their pilots requested.
I did this for lying to me (personally) and their fellow pilots.

Hopefully, come this Fall we can vote in entirely new LEC and MEC members and start fresh.. on both sides.
I do feel that the majority of union officers should go back on the line and fly/live this contract.

Motch

Snarge

You are the one that raised the issue in an earlier post.. that you still can't believe we voted Yes. I told you why I voted yes and asked that state why you voted No.

You are spending more time telling me you aren't going to tell me, then simply explaining your no vote... If you can't say it in two sentences then maybe..... you really don't know why you voted no.

what you are really saying is... "I don't have a compelling reason.. I just wanted really wanted to vote no and that's what I did...."

or as it was suggested... "this JCBA mis-identifies who I want to be as an airline pilot.... so... No." Which is understandable... admirable even....

syd111

Lol, because they fit his reality and not yours means they were not compelling, hey vote yes vote no, sounds like your mind was made up and your tail was, is, still between your legs.

It has been all over this site and on the line, assuming you fly the line, like I said and see if you can inderstand this I am not going to beat the reasons up again, just not worth my time. Have a good life!

Sunvox

For the folks wanting to discuss Yes versus No votes on the UPA, I would politely suggest someone start a new thread as it seems a major divergence for a thread about the SLI, but then again that's just me and I may be suffering from "confirmation bias"

Being one to never miss a good online discussion, I certainly would join in


Joe

sleeves

I'm not sure you ask me or if you are interested in why I did but, my no vote was primarily for lack of scope. I will never vote for a contract that gives up scope. Notice MGT. will not give it back... They will not even discuss giving it back. We will never get the flying we are going to lose because of this contract back.

Snarge

Thanks...

the Scope SMEs stated this was industry leading... (their words)... know the nmb and the process, do you think we could have gotten better scope with a no and what would you be willing to trade for it?

Scott Stoops

Absolutely. I appreciate your efforts, but they were about 2 years too late to matter to the UAL pilot group. From my and many of the UAL pilot groups perspective, Pierce and much of his MEC hijacked the process, and the vote (right or wrong) was, IMHO, a vote against that. The UAL side, again right or wrong, saw a threat in Pierce and his collusion with UCH and his MEC to gain leverage in the ISL. I believe the entire process was focused not on achieving an industry leading contract, but on influencing the ISL process. I hope that blows up in the faces of the CAL MEC. Their "fair" proposal was preposterous. I truly hope that the UAL proposal is reasonable. I'll be extremely disappointed if it isn't.

I would also agree that once we have an ISL, I will accept the outcome, and embrace the process of moving forward. A mostly/entirely new MEC would be an appropriate start. Unfortunately, if the ISL comes out near either extreme, I'm afraid it will result in a really crappy place to work that struggles financially. With 25 years to go, I cannot afford for that to happen.

Scott

LAX Pilot

if you think about it, that's a good strategy. ISL lasts forever, so give up some stuff now and sit tight on issues that benefit L-CAL for ISL purposes, then go into the next contract and "un-do" them back to things that are overall beneficial to the pilot group.

After seeing the CAL proposed ISL (plus all their arguments), we can agree there is a full on seniority grab going on, and it started about 3 years ago.

AxlF16

Agreed. I understand the positional advantage they held and if I were in their position I would've even proposed it as a valid COA. OTOH, I would've rejected it as my first choice because of the negative long term effects to the combined pilot group. I understand that CAL ALPA represents the CAL pilots, but that representation should be forward looking and wider in scope. For the same reasons that I conduct myself with the entire pilot group in mind, instead of just doing what's best for me, CAL ALPA should've conducted the JCBA negotiations with the entire pilot group in mind.

IMO the 'Hail Mary' play began almost three years ago...they are just trying to catch the ball now.

horrido27

I was going to post to you guys individually, but the message was/is going to be the same.

If you and your union feel that everything done with regards to the JCBA (on the CAL Side) was done to influence the SLI, then I expect your MC will spend alot of time on that front when May comes around and they have the floor at the hearings.

As far as being two years too late.. well, the reality is, JayP does not and did not work for the UAL pilots. He worked/works for the Continental pilots.

One point that I brought up over the past few years was- Where is ALPA National/Lee Moak in all this?
If you truly feel/think that CALALPA did all this (JCBA) to influence to SLI, then how did your (UALALPA) union allow it, and (again), where was ALPA National?

It's obvious that the relationship between the two unions and a good portion of their individual pilot groups is pretty tainted.
The only real question is-
Is it like Israel v. Palestine?
Is it like NorKo v. SouthK?
Is it like the North v. South?
Is it like West Germany v. East Germany?
etc... you get my point.

Hopefully after Aug/Sept we can get along.. and those (on both sides) who are ****ed at the other side can let it go and move forward together. But I'll bet that there will always be those who aren't going to like what they see and won't be able to let it go.

Oh well
Motch

PS> After SLI, the only ones to be ****ed at will be towards the Arbitrators!