|
Originally Posted by routemap
(Post 1413291)
Are you for real? You really believe what you just wrote?
Absolutely ! |
Originally Posted by Snarge
(Post 1413280)
I voted for the agreement. Here is why:
CAL ALPA really brought not too much to the table, so instead of using real leverage, Pierce manufactured leverage with brinkmanship. CAL JCBA negotiations were all about the ISL, because, ..... CAL really brought not too much to the table. The CAL pilots traded unity for a few pieces of silver.... They were happy with the status quo of no JCBA for the upgrades, regardless of where it was going to put them in a couple of years. For the betterment of all of us, we needed to get the CBA done and the ISL done, so the company can quit playing us against each other.... That had value to me. There was no better deal. No one, could present a compelling argument to vote No with the prospects of a better deal. Even to this date, on this forum, no one can provide this argument. There is no precedence. The APA BK agreement doesn't come close. The political capital collected by the UAL Leg Affairs on CapHill was used up. The political players and the NMB believed this was the best deal. Compared to the rest of the economy, if we voted this down, we'd be seen as whiny prima donnas. In this anti labor, pro capital economy, this is a good deal. The NO voters are identity driven. They want to be known as better than Delta and equal in status as Smisek.... this JCBA didn't match that. But that wasn't the lens used by the yes voters. The yes voters pragmatically looked at the data... used a business deal logic and voted. It's called negotiations for a reason. That is why we didn't get everything what we wanted. And why the company didn't get all they wanted.... Despite the NO ego's, and for their betterment, the JCBA passes. What has happened is done. We own it, let's move on... get the ISL done, put on the cheesy uniform and proceed. |
Originally Posted by EWRflyr
(Post 1413258)
There is much about that statement I agree with, but just a correction:
The first (30) EMB175s announced a few weeks ago are being bought by United. These (40) planes are being bought by Skywest, as part of a 100 aircraft order with 100 options. SkyWest, Inc. Announces Agreement With Embraer For 100 Firm And 100 Options E175 Regional Jets - Yahoo! Finance I just completed a trip where we were supposed to have "contractually compliant crew meals" on board all but one of our flights, per the meal matrix posted on the Flight Operations website. Not one meal was boarded this trip and the caterers didn't have a clue what we were talking about. That's fine. I just ended up expensing a nice reasonable dinner of MY choosing on each overnight. Sorry for the drift.... uSource: https://flyingtogether.ual.com/web/c...ID=Procurement |
Originally Posted by horrido27
(Post 1413256)
How did you Vote?
CAL ALPA really brought not too much to the table, so instead of using real leverage, Pierce manufactured leverage with brinkmanship. CAL JCBA negotiations were all about the ISL, because, ..... CAL really brought not too much to the table. The CAL pilots traded unity for a few pieces of silver.... They were happy with the status quo of no JCBA for the upgrades, regardless of where it was going to put them in a couple of years. For the betterment of all of us, we needed to get the CBA done and the ISL done, so the company can quit playing us against each other.... That had value to me. There was no better deal. No one, could present a compelling argument to vote No with the prospects of a better deal. Even to this date, on this forum, no one can provide this argument. There is no precedence. The APA BK agreement doesn't come close. The political capital collected by the UAL Leg Affairs on CapHill was used up. The political players and the NMB believed this was the best deal. Compared to the rest of the economy, if we voted this down, we'd be seen as whiny prima donnas. In this anti labor, pro capital economy, this is a good deal. The NO voters are identity driven. They want to be known as better than Delta and equal in status as Smisek.... this JCBA didn't match that. But that wasn't the lens used by the yes voters. The yes voters pragmatically looked at the data... used a business deal logic and voted. It's called negotiations for a reason. That is why we didn't get everything what we wanted. And why the company didn't get all they wanted.... Despite the NO ego's, and for their betterment, the JCBA passes. What has happened is done. We own it, let's move on... get the ISL done, put on the cheesy uniform and proceed. That's okay, though. You got yours. Go ahead and pull up the ladder. You're fine. SCR |
Originally Posted by SoCentralRain
(Post 1413305)
How about letting 1437 of your "brothers" get hit a third time by the bus ala LOA 25. That should have been enough for a "HELL NO" vote.
That's okay, though. You got yours. Go ahead and pull up the ladder. You're fine. SCR next? |
Originally Posted by Snarge
(Post 1413280)
I voted for the agreement. Here is why:
CAL ALPA really brought not too much to the table, so instead of using real leverage, Pierce manufactured leverage with brinkmanship. CAL JCBA negotiations were all about the ISL, because, ..... CAL really brought not too much to the table. The CAL pilots traded unity for a few pieces of silver.... They were happy with the status quo of no JCBA for the upgrades, regardless of where it was going to put them in a couple of years. For the betterment of all of us, we needed to get the CBA done and the ISL done, so the company can quit playing us against each other.... That had value to me. There was no better deal. No one, could present a compelling argument to vote No with the prospects of a better deal. Even to this date, on this forum, no one can provide this argument. There is no precedence. The APA BK agreement doesn't come close. The political capital collected by the UAL Leg Affairs on CapHill was used up. The political players and the NMB believed this was the best deal. Compared to the rest of the economy, if we voted this down, we'd be seen as whiny prima donnas. In this anti labor, pro capital economy, this is a good deal. The NO voters are identity driven. They want to be known as better than Delta and equal in status as Smisek.... this JCBA didn't match that. But that wasn't the lens used by the yes voters. The yes voters pragmatically looked at the data... used a business deal logic and voted. It's called negotiations for a reason. That is why we didn't get everything what we wanted. And why the company didn't get all they wanted.... Despite the NO ego's, and for their betterment, the JCBA passes. What has happened is done. We own it, let's move on... get the ISL done, put on the cheesy uniform and proceed. I voted no for many reasons bottom line is I gave up too much and this contract failed to compensate me for all my sacrifices. I looked st the data and implementation dates and found the agreement unacceptable. I never told or tried to convince others how to vote and ignored the union fear tactics. Your management, your union, your SCOPE CLAUSE, all irreverent it was all CAL's fault. It's all a great conspiracy started back in 2000. Is it too hot outside? That was also CAL's fault. |
Originally Posted by routemap
(Post 1413308)
I voted no for many reasons bottom line is I gave up too much and this contract failed to compensate me for all my sacrifices. I looked st the data and implementation dates and found the agreement unacceptable. I never told or tried to convince others how to vote and ignored the union fear tactics.
Your management, your union, your SCOPE CLAUSE, all irreverent it was all CAL's fault. It's all a great conspiracy started back in 2000. Is it too hot outside? That was also CAL's fault. What you need to reconcile, was, were you going to get a better deal? The money you left on the table... were you going to get what you justly deserved for your sacrifices and make up for the money left on the table.... this is what you can not answer... making your NO vote irresponsible because while admirable, was going to yield less money in the long run for your sacrifices. Just the like the USAPA guys... they've been losing money for years..... |
Originally Posted by Snarge
(Post 1413280)
I voted for the agreement. Here is why:...
... What has happened is done. We own it, let's move on... get the ISL done, put on the cheesy uniform and proceed. But my post was directed at Staller (I'm assuming a Legacy United Pilot) who stated that Jay Pierce, and only he.. is responsible for the fact that we will now be seeing 70 new Large RJ's on property starting next year. Not Hep, Not ALPA National, not the YES Voters.. one individual, Jay Pierce. I Voted NO for numerous reasons.. one of them including SCOPE. These new RJ's are coming without any corressponding New Small NarrowBody Aircraft (no matter what Trip7 states..). Yes, at some point this New SCOPE may butt against restrictions that might help us.. but in the near term, and as far as I can see.. this does nothing for the combined Pilot Group. Come Aug/Sept we can try and put the SLI behind us and get ready for the next battle. Who runs the union and what actually becomes of our union. No matter what I do, I see the next 3-5 years as being one struggle and battle after the next. All we can do if our jobs, and enforce our contract. Now, back to our regularly scheduled *****fest~ Always Motch PS> Latest rumors at ground school is that the IT implementation is still way behind, and that we're still looking at separate (but equal.. lol!) ops going into the latter part of 2014! That and the rumor of the SFO 73 base opining up sometime after SLI~ |
Originally Posted by routemap
(Post 1413308)
I voted no for many reasons bottom line is I gave up too much and this contract failed to compensate me for all my sacrifices. I looked st the data and implementation dates and found the agreement unacceptable. I never told or tried to convince others how to vote and ignored the union fear tactics.
Your management, your union, your SCOPE CLAUSE, all irreverent it was all CAL's fault. It's all a great conspiracy started back in 2000. Is it too hot outside? That was also CAL's fault. |
Originally Posted by Snarge
(Post 1413307)
A majority of the 1437 I spoke to were in favor of the agreement, despite LOA25.... In addition, there aren't enough active line pilots who give a damn to vote no, for the 1437... meaning... it didn't matter....
next? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:10 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands