Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05 (Post 1441089)

LUAL parked the entire fleet of 737's and replaced the flying with RJ's AFTER the pilots gave up scope. Parking of the 737's was all about surviving. This whole "parked for the merger" talk is missing the FACT that l-UAL pilots had essentially given the company the green light to outsource flying.

In all honesty, I was truly hoping that LUAL pilots would have been the more adamant group about holding the line on scope in these last rounds of negotiations since they saw their careers decimated by incompetent management and scope relaxation ...but I digress.

Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05 (Post 1441066)

L-UAL pilots have no choice but to build up the "wide body" fallacy because they gave up all of their 737 when they voted to relax scope. So, naturally their airline would be "jumbo" heavy. Of course, now they are trying to regain all of that lost progression by screaming that "longevity" is the end all while forgetting that the 3 factors mentioned in the ALPA merger policy is a means to an end. The point of the policy is NOT that the final list be composed soley by heavily weighing any of the much preached about "3 factors". The entire goal is a "fair and equitable list". Arbitrators can compare size of airplane or size of underwear if they want, as long as they come up with a "fair and equitable list". In the end the crux of this SLI weighs on if the arbitrators feel that placing unemployed pilots of a shrinking airline in front of employed pilots with solid expectations as "fair and equitable".

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking (Post 1441099)

Parked the entire fleet and replaced it with rj flying? You might want to talk to the bus drivers and ask them what happened to their flying after the guppies were parked.

In all honesty, I wish the cal mec would have been more adamant in upholding unionism. But then, nothing like three years to drive upgrades and promote a snapshot date.

Originally Posted by CALFO (Post 1440054)

Sorry. That was a typo on my part. I meant to say that the cal 2005 pilot was a senior FO in 2010. Why should he be junior to a 1998 ual pilot that can barely hold reserve in 2010?

Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05 (Post 1441118)

Yes, it's always the fault of the CAL pilots and our MEC led by the all powerful Jay Pierce. I'm beginning to realize that if you don't agree with or acquiesce to every demand of LUAL pilot group then your not a "unionist" or you're "holding up the UPA".

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking (Post 1441237)

The track record over the last three years speaks volumes. There are two examples which stand out. First is your lec stating the upa would be held up indefinitely if pay banding was not utilized. Secondly, the refusal to sign an dal style agreement not to use the upa as a springboard for the sli.

Pretty much every ual pilot I have spoken with who voted for the contract said the agreement was substandard. Their primary reason for voting yes was to end the abuses of the last three years.

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking (Post 1441257)

Trying to deflect what occurred during the last three years MAX? I will never convince you and don't need to. Although I voted no, I understand why the majority on the United side voted yes knowing full well what a pig of an agreement it is.

The events of the last three years speak for themselves.

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking (Post 1441237)

The track record over the last three years speaks volumes. There are two examples which stand out. First is your lec stating the upa would be held up indefinitely if pay banding was not utilized. Secondly, the refusal to sign an dal style agreement not to use the upa as a springboard for the sli.

Pretty much every ual pilot I have spoken with who voted for the contract said the agreement was substandard. Their primary reason for voting yes was to end the abuses of the last three years.