Why didn't you stand-up for UNITY on day ONE. The UAL MEC presented an Olive Branch and pulled back a stub. You allowed a bully to posture and drive a wedge on day ONE. Now, you want kindness, understanding and unity. Guess, you feel you've won somehow - time will tell if the fruits are that sweet?

 

I liked Ben's update. Whatever has happened to you in the past should be left in the jetway, Im tired of hearing, "at United we did it this way...", "we were downsized for the merger" "I should be in your seat" etc. etc... YAWN....

Take it up with Glenn. I won't be splitting the check with you. Suck it up, folks.

 

Who you talking to Larry - BS can take care of himself. You run out of YouTube references?

 

Olive branch? More like a Trojan Horse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzTe...e_gdata_player

 

I knew you could do it you tried - hopefully the UAL guys on this forum will stop picking on you - it's just not right!

 

Thanks for the honest reply Syd. I agree with all of your sentiments, and feel the same way in most instances. The truth of the matter is that this merger has taken WAY too long. As a result, the potential for disunity has prevailed. We must make a conscious effort to thwart this venom.
I spoke with a friend of mine on the UAL MEC last week and we went tit for tat, in jest, on what wouldn't have happened had the company been serious about this merger two years ago. Things mentioned were:
-I would have never written my com piece
-The profit-sharing debacle wouldn't have occurred
-The UAL MEC would never have launched a grievance stating that all (both UAL and CAL) flying belonged to UAL
-The UAL MEC wouldn't have launched a grievance To block the CAL Pilot's IAH 787 base
-The MEC's would not have had to fight for an LOA to extend the UAL TPA protections for the UAL Pilots (passed by the CAL MEC unanimously, UAL MEC by majority)
-The UAL MEC would have been included in Bids 13-08, and 14-02. Ergo, they wouldn't be fighting to cancel my Pilots current bid awards on said bids
At the end of the day, I'm embarrassed by how we have treated each other. I'm also encouraged by talks with individual Pilots from both sides. Get a few blue suiters into a quorum and common sense seems to depart the fix. Get a few black-suiters together and witness the same phenomena.
We both have our beliefs about how things should work out. We've both seen each other's proposals. The only thing that keeps me sane is my commitment to accept the sli, then show up the next day and focus on our collective goals going forward.
My com, that offended many, needed to be said; if for no one else but me. I got it off my chest and can return to our core values. I'm gonna try to serve as best I can until I can't take anymore. I look forward to what both groups bring to the table. The UAL sli might set me back 7 years(last time I was 81% was 2006), but it will be what it will be.
No one posting on this forum had any input into the sli proposals, including me. As a result, I hold no contempt for any line Pilot.

Frats,
-Ben

 

If I didn't know you were a uniter, I'd swear you were trying to put all the BS on the backs of the UAL MEC. That wouldn't be a good thing for an LEC rep to do - almost as bad as publishing a bash letter for an LEC ego problem.

 

Snoring sound effect - YouTube

 

With all due respect, the UAL SLI proposed placing you at 75%, which is 3% different than you were on the merger date. (You were 72% based on the list that CAL MC provided at the hearing).

I don't see how 3% translates to 7 years.

Also, those UAL pilots who are equivalent seniority to you were hired at UAL in 1998 and never furloughed. So they are not thrilled being the same seniority as someone hired in 2005 at CAL.

Of course the arbitrators can give as much weight to longevity as they like, so maybe its more or less than the UAL proposal....

We will all know soon.

 

Actually you'll be doing whatever the arbitrators tell you. You don't have to like it, that's just the way it is. Better get out your straw there Mr. big talker.