The thing is, as I've heard over and over and over again from the CAL side... it's just business. The CAL MEC offered up what can only be described as an exceptionally offensive (yet "fair" by their standards) SLI proposal that stapled nearly a third of the UAL list. Although many of us understand that this is just "business", many others are seriously offended by the way this has gone down. All of it. Is someone not acknowledging you in the terminal worse than CAL's proposed staple? Not in my book. You want to build unity? It doesn't start with a nod or a hello in passing...

BTW, I've got the beers when we fly together regardless of which seat I'm in, I just wish that the "opening offer" was a more reasonable one. We'll see how the UAL proposal looks soon enough. With 25 years to go, I cannot afford for the resolution to be unfair to anyone. We need this to work.

Remember, not one line pilot had any thing to do with the SLI. Never did, never will. We are informed on the process/progress as you are. Taking it out on the pilots that had nothing to do or say about is ________. I'll let you fill in the blank.

I understand and appreciate the sentiment. I also disagree.

Your MEC has made choices. By default, you own them. At every single stage of this process (3+ years), CAL and UAL pilots have had the opportunity to make changes towards unity. To simply throw your arms up in "disbelief" at the result means nothing. Your leadership (and mine!) is a direct result of either action or inaction. Regardless, silent opposition does nothing.

On the quote above, I agree. I always acknowledge crews from all realms be it UCH, regionals, other airlines etc... as I understand that they're just doing their jobs. I also understand why others might not...

A little simplistic. That's like blaming democrats for Bush or republicans for Obama. Just because someone is voted in doesn't mean I voted for them or agree with them. Sure, Obama is my president and so Is Jay Pierce. I didn't vote for them. I have a new contract I voted "no" for too.

Understood. I now have a contract I voted "no" for too. I'm just trying to get through to the CAL side just how egregious the CAL proposal was to our side. I also need to make clear just how offensive JP's actions during the JCBA have been. No one in CALPA has done any bridge building, yet you want it to start now after the CAL proposal? You, again by default, actually advocated stapling the bottom several thousand UAL pilots. I have not seen anyone from the CAL side saying wait, what? Why is that?

Scott

Scott, You probably won't get anyone on a public forum to come on and give specifics about what they think is fair or unfair about a proposal!! (ie- contract, ISL) We all have different opinions on what is fair! I'm sure if you got into specifics on contractual issues or Sen. list issues the guy you're flying with will have different ideas of what is fair than you!! (you would be surprised what goes on behind closed doors at these things!! Thats why it's always nice to have Reps on ALL parts of the Comm. representing different parts of the pilot group!) The silence of the CAL guys isn't so much that they Agree or Disagree with ISL proposal, it's just that realize it's part of the game!! I think the BIG difference between the groups is that many CAL guys have been through this "Dog and Pony" show before!! Whereas, the UAL guys have lived a pretty stable life Seniority and Contract wise! CAL has been through Multiple ISL's whereas UAL has not! I think our Merger Comm. Jim Brucia could start a consulting job on ISL after he retires, he's done so many!! Again, I'm sure when your proposal comes out some of our "Keyboard Commando's" will rip the proposal apart and say how unreasonable you are!! I won't be one of them, I've been down this road before! I'm just looking forward to wearing one uniform and having one MEC!

We have a "bingo."

During contract negotiations, I once asked an experienced Union rep: "Why don't we save time and open with a reasonable offer, somewhere close to the middle, since that's where we always end up?"
He replied: "Because that would change the location of the middle."

Again... Not a negotiation. Each side gets to argue, but we don't get a chance to agree or disagree. I see nothing gained by being "unreasonable". This more resembles a litigation than a negotiation.

Scott

Offensive by your point of view Scott, To you I say too bad.... Build a bridge yeah right...What has your side done to build a bridge? How many time has your mec gone against management and yes our side has gotten the info from the press, no warning just blind siding... Stapling no problem, what about your torque program wanting to put all Cal pilots out of work.. Come on get off your holier than now soap box.....Rolls reversed you guys would do the same... Don't give me that crap....What about all the nasty stuff council in Ord put out about the cal guys or the crap your furlough guy had out in in print... You never saw that from us....Why should we say wait? Come on Scott wake up... Stop this sympathy poor me stuff.....You don't like the proposal too bad,, Maybe we won't like yours......Max....