CAL v. UAL Rants, thread drift overflow
#21
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Posts: 536
Well Snarge, at least you have the guts to admit you voted Yes.
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~
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~
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,007
Guts? Your framed comment suggests that the YES voters are cowards, or at least not willing to openly discuss the vote. Whereas, I would suggest that you didn't have the guts to vote YES. You knew the JCBA would probably pass, so you got to play the hard core NO voter and now, you get to play the "I told you so" and "I had courage".....
Open forum and discussion....
The reason why the SFO/WAS 737 base has not opened up already is because (supposedly) the UAL MC told UCH if you do that prior to SLI, the UAL pilots will be enraged over the perception/reality that the CAL guys have surely benefited much more in this merger....
Yet, you and the NO voters are missing a fundamental point...
Sure you've got reasons to vote NO.... and you've listed them in this post... and I share many of them... of course I wanted the JCBA to be better... but despite your shared eloquent and logical reasons for voting NO, you weren't going to get better; scope, pay, retro, etc... it wasn't going to happen. Why? because you have no compelling reasons. You might be able to convince yourself, but the JNC, two MECs and 67% thought differently... yet the 33% are still the smart guys?
UCH, like USAIR was going advantage the the lower pay cost and continue to operate. After about a year, enough NO voters would be worn down and tired, ready for a deal and with a net gain of zero.. it would have passed... that is if U-ALPA and C-ALPA didn't morally collapse into Lord of the Flies....
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.
Not Hep, Not ALPA National, not the YES Voters.. one individual, Jay Pierce.
I Voted NO for numerous reasons.. one of them including SCOPE.
Yet, you and the NO voters are missing a fundamental point...
Sure you've got reasons to vote NO.... and you've listed them in this post... and I share many of them... of course I wanted the JCBA to be better... but despite your shared eloquent and logical reasons for voting NO, you weren't going to get better; scope, pay, retro, etc... it wasn't going to happen. Why? because you have no compelling reasons. You might be able to convince yourself, but the JNC, two MECs and 67% thought differently... yet the 33% are still the smart guys?
UCH, like USAIR was going advantage the the lower pay cost and continue to operate. After about a year, enough NO voters would be worn down and tired, ready for a deal and with a net gain of zero.. it would have passed... that is if U-ALPA and C-ALPA didn't morally collapse into Lord of the Flies....
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 341
Doesn't matter how anybody voted on this contract. It was backloaded by pierce and company to get a no vote to delay implementation and promote the big seniority grab. It backfired on him and you see the results with the fake seniority lists and other SLI claims/lies. The cal guys asked for it - now live with it.
#26
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: 756 Left Side
Posts: 1,629
Snarge.. before this gets out of hand- I will PM you my number if you want to talk.
As far as I'm concerned, the Vote is over. Yet one of your own UAL Pilots came on here and threw JP out as the reason this 40 seat Large RJ order is happening. My reply was simple. How did you vote?
If anyone voted YES and then *****es about the crap that is happening, well.. what did they expect.
I was taught a valuable lesson early on in life. You get nothing without working hard for it. And sometimes, you have to fight for it. And sometimes Life is Unfair.
In my opinion, both unions were dysfunctional from the start.. and yet we garnered a 99% Strike Vote. And then we did nothing with it.
But it's over.
As far as the SFO Base.. if the reason was the "UAL Pilots will be enraged".. ok, whatever. In my experience, management doesn't seem to care about workers being "enraged". They care about the bottom line.
When "enraged" equals a Strike or something else that costs us money, then the company will Stop and take notice.
But a threat of "being enraged"?!
When all is said and done, I think you will see two major hubs on the West Coast, and two on the East Coast. I expect they will have 73's everywhere.. as it will end up being our greatest fleet.
The only question now is when? The company has a JCBA.. so they can start implementing new bases at their pleasure (my opinion).
If they do a SFO Base prior to the SLI and it's only offered to the CAL Pilots (based on our current CBA).. sorry.
But once we have the SLI, and that base continues to grow, there will be openings for both sides.
Oh, and unless the SFO losses aircraft/staffing due to a 737 base, it's not that big of an issue in the short term.
Again, word on the rumor mill is that the SFO Base is waiting for SLI. Though, on the LCAL Side, we require (per our old CBA) another bid (even if it turns out to be a bid per the new CBA) sometime in the next three months. That is prior to SLI.
Motch
As far as I'm concerned, the Vote is over. Yet one of your own UAL Pilots came on here and threw JP out as the reason this 40 seat Large RJ order is happening. My reply was simple. How did you vote?
If anyone voted YES and then *****es about the crap that is happening, well.. what did they expect.
I was taught a valuable lesson early on in life. You get nothing without working hard for it. And sometimes, you have to fight for it. And sometimes Life is Unfair.
In my opinion, both unions were dysfunctional from the start.. and yet we garnered a 99% Strike Vote. And then we did nothing with it.
But it's over.
As far as the SFO Base.. if the reason was the "UAL Pilots will be enraged".. ok, whatever. In my experience, management doesn't seem to care about workers being "enraged". They care about the bottom line.
When "enraged" equals a Strike or something else that costs us money, then the company will Stop and take notice.
But a threat of "being enraged"?!
When all is said and done, I think you will see two major hubs on the West Coast, and two on the East Coast. I expect they will have 73's everywhere.. as it will end up being our greatest fleet.
The only question now is when? The company has a JCBA.. so they can start implementing new bases at their pleasure (my opinion).
If they do a SFO Base prior to the SLI and it's only offered to the CAL Pilots (based on our current CBA).. sorry.
But once we have the SLI, and that base continues to grow, there will be openings for both sides.
Oh, and unless the SFO losses aircraft/staffing due to a 737 base, it's not that big of an issue in the short term.
Again, word on the rumor mill is that the SFO Base is waiting for SLI. Though, on the LCAL Side, we require (per our old CBA) another bid (even if it turns out to be a bid per the new CBA) sometime in the next three months. That is prior to SLI.
Motch
#27
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Posts: 536
pierce didn't out negotiate anybody - he sold out your group on day one and tried to sell ours out - he lost and you have a POS contract that allows for the RJ's that will replace your 737's. j.pierce will likely end up with Jeff and his management team. He'll have no place on the combined MEC - not even as an advisor. Kind of like prater's fall from grace, pierce will find his bottom.
#28
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Posts: 536
Perfect post.
So now, the only question going forward (come 2014) is how we will keep track of the Block hours, the Hub to Hub flying, and the 900nm flying.
The company wasted no time in getting their max out of the SCOPE Section (near term). But they are unable to get required crew meals nor are they willing to address the 757-200 Crew Rest issue.
Sucks
Motch
So now, the only question going forward (come 2014) is how we will keep track of the Block hours, the Hub to Hub flying, and the 900nm flying.
The company wasted no time in getting their max out of the SCOPE Section (near term). But they are unable to get required crew meals nor are they willing to address the 757-200 Crew Rest issue.
Sucks
Motch
#29
Our old management will do what it the did from 2000 to 2005 when they built up to use 274 35/50-seat Embraers--stop hiring and shrink with retirements resulting in seniority stagnation for most.
#30
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post