Important to keep in mind
04-28-2013 | 07:55 PM
#131
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,738
Likes: 5
From: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Not to mention the Colorado Springs accident that was pilot induced. An axe in the captain's head did not help the matter.
Are you hearing the "voices" again?
04-28-2013 | 07:56 PM
#132
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
From: 737 Cap
Scott
04-28-2013 | 08:02 PM
#133
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,738
Likes: 5
From: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Or the blow out cabin on the 747 near Hawaii???
04-28-2013 | 08:17 PM
#134
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
From: 737 Cap
Scott
04-28-2013 | 08:21 PM
#135
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
From: Unqalified
I was trying to ascertain as to how "jumpsat on both" provides one the holistic view and perspective to determine which group, per se, adheres to the highest levels of quality and standardization. It is now apparent (this being your first or second airline) you simply don't possess the depth and breadth of experience to make a qualified judgement regarding said issue.
Additionally; your retort regarding "crash statistics" speaks VOLUMES about your lack of the aforementioned as well...truly class-less.
Frats brother
04-28-2013 | 08:45 PM
#136
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
From: Unqalified
Your good fortune is there remain those who are willing to sacrifice for your carcass, regardless of the lack of moral fiber or humility contained within....
04-28-2013 | 10:50 PM
#137
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
My guess is that the active longevity will account for something, in the status and category of furloughed. Ask your merger committee, both committees are well aware of that!
You are correct that choice is not in ALPA merger policy, but take the blinders off. Define career expectations... Do you know what it means? Or do you think it only means widebody? It has way more latitude than you think, read past awards, and see what was considered part of expectations. You could look at everything as black and white, and with blinders on, but looking at this with an open mind and realizing the latitude that the arbitrators have, we will all be just a bit less disappointed when the list is published. You are holding on to active longevity, there are many other factors, and they WILL be credited to both sides. I would bet anything on that!
You are correct that choice is not in ALPA merger policy, but take the blinders off. Define career expectations... Do you know what it means? Or do you think it only means widebody? It has way more latitude than you think, read past awards, and see what was considered part of expectations. You could look at everything as black and white, and with blinders on, but looking at this with an open mind and realizing the latitude that the arbitrators have, we will all be just a bit less disappointed when the list is published. You are holding on to active longevity, there are many other factors, and they WILL be credited to both sides. I would bet anything on that!
Let's say, for example, that UAL wanted to merger with CAL back in the early 2000's (that is probably when informal talks started) and by some miracle DOT and DOJ approved the merger but with stipulations. The merger happens and integration is done but the stipulations are that the new company needs to divest certain amount of capacity in certain markets for anti-trust issues. It is not unusual when capacity shrinks after a merger. Would you agree that is a fair statement?
So, the company complies and lo and behold furloughs are going to be needed. The list is already integrated so they start from the bottom and obviously its from both groups.
I think its obvious where I'm going with this. I also think that to discount any possibility that two management teams would NOT AT ALL try to do as much of the prep work prior to submitting their proposal to DOT and DOJ is being obtuse. In fact it would be naive to think that these type of discussions did not happen. Put yourself in their shoes for 30 seconds and ask yourself why you would NOT want to prep this deal as much as you can beforehand.
Neither of these two companies had the cash for an outright purchase so a merger of equals had to be the answer and that can only be done when market caps/stock price are pretty similar and the swap ratio is one where both parties agree.
I think all can agree that nobody here on this board was privy to conversations between the principles on this merger. That being said, what I offer above is certainly in the realm of possibility and logic and can not simply be dismissed outright.
04-29-2013 | 03:08 AM
#138
Banned
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Jesus, you have NO concept of these two incidents...what's more disturbing is you lack the compassion and understanding of knowing what it's like to bury aviators and friends you've known in aviation. You simply have no concept of the perils of aviation, whatsoever...
Your good fortune is there remain those who are willing to sacrifice for your carcass, regardless of the lack of moral fiber or humility contained within....
Your good fortune is there remain those who are willing to sacrifice for your carcass, regardless of the lack of moral fiber or humility contained within....
I just love seeing you UAL folks so rattled up!!! I can't help it if the last 13 years of your career sucked!!!
I guess the late 1990s cocky attitude of UAL go you nowhere.
You are right, I am an idiot, but I am an idiot that never got furloughed.
04-29-2013 | 04:12 AM
#140
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Please keep in mind that mergers are not done in a vacuum. Two management teams don't one day decide to have a meeting and announce 30 days later a merger is agreed upon.
Let's say, for example, that UAL wanted to merger with CAL back in the early 2000's (that is probably when informal talks started) and by some miracle DOT and DOJ approved the merger but with stipulations. The merger happens and integration is done but the stipulations are that the new company needs to divest certain amount of capacity in certain markets for anti-trust issues. It is not unusual when capacity shrinks after a merger. Would you agree that is a fair statement?
So, the company complies and lo and behold furloughs are going to be needed. The list is already integrated so they start from the bottom and obviously its from both groups.
I think its obvious where I'm going with this. I also think that to discount any possibility that two management teams would NOT AT ALL try to do as much of the prep work prior to submitting their proposal to DOT and DOJ is being obtuse. In fact it would be naive to think that these type of discussions did not happen. Put yourself in their shoes for 30 seconds and ask yourself why you would NOT want to prep this deal as much as you can beforehand.
Neither of these two companies had the cash for an outright purchase so a merger of equals had to be the answer and that can only be done when market caps/stock price are pretty similar and the swap ratio is one where both parties agree.
I think all can agree that nobody here on this board was privy to conversations between the principles on this merger. That being said, what I offer above is certainly in the realm of possibility and logic and can not simply be dismissed outright.
Let's say, for example, that UAL wanted to merger with CAL back in the early 2000's (that is probably when informal talks started) and by some miracle DOT and DOJ approved the merger but with stipulations. The merger happens and integration is done but the stipulations are that the new company needs to divest certain amount of capacity in certain markets for anti-trust issues. It is not unusual when capacity shrinks after a merger. Would you agree that is a fair statement?
So, the company complies and lo and behold furloughs are going to be needed. The list is already integrated so they start from the bottom and obviously its from both groups.
I think its obvious where I'm going with this. I also think that to discount any possibility that two management teams would NOT AT ALL try to do as much of the prep work prior to submitting their proposal to DOT and DOJ is being obtuse. In fact it would be naive to think that these type of discussions did not happen. Put yourself in their shoes for 30 seconds and ask yourself why you would NOT want to prep this deal as much as you can beforehand.
Neither of these two companies had the cash for an outright purchase so a merger of equals had to be the answer and that can only be done when market caps/stock price are pretty similar and the swap ratio is one where both parties agree.
I think all can agree that nobody here on this board was privy to conversations between the principles on this merger. That being said, what I offer above is certainly in the realm of possibility and logic and can not simply be dismissed outright.
Otherwise a well thought out response, but I don't think it will count for much as you can not prove it. Also, UAL was in talks with USAir when CAL came along...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
