Projection
 

Projection: How many lawsuits will UAL pilots have after the SLI is posted?

I predict four all together...

The two they have now plus two more....

Do you mean "prediction"?

Who cares? And if things go the way the UAL MEC likes, how many lawsuits will the CAL pilots file?

Who cares?

Authoring posts which intend to give a poke at the other team makes you a troll.

The unity train never left the station thanks to the pay banding issue and your teams insistence on holding their breath until we capitulated. Of course, that all looks completely planned now given the surge in growth by the CAL side thanks to UAL capital. You know, that 5 billion we had in the bank even though we were at deaths door and all that.

Perhaps if the SLI goes equally lousy for both sides, the train may begin to chug as the company jerrymanders the planes and bases and porks things up further.

Have fun.

Like a "Projection" TV?

Stay classy CAL pilot !

A poke? UAL pilots already have 2 lawsuits, what's wrong with predicting how many more plus the classic ALPA recall


There were some among you ****ed at your own proposal so I see no poking at my question just looking ahead at the scenarios that will unfold.

Man you guys are so sensitive...S

Obviously you do care, since you decided to post your opinion under otherwise useles post.

I honestly think he could care less.

not worth it

Not worth it.

There can be 50 lawsuits filed....the SLI will be imposed after it's handed down from the arbitrators. Comparing this to USAirways is apples to oranges.

Oh there will be suits filed. In my 24 years I've never seen a shortage of foolish pilots willing to part with hard earned money. Will it affect any SLI....Nope.

pro·jec·tion
prəˈjekSHən
noun
1.
an estimate or forecast of a future situation or trend based on a study of present ones.
"plans based on projections of slow but positive growth"
synonyms: forecast, prediction, prognosis, outlook, expectation, estimate More
2.
the presentation of an image on a surface, esp. a movie screen.
"quality illustrations for overhead projection"


Maybe you need to go back to school, it seems I used the first definition while you used the second and what you thought was the only one....nice one UAL legacy dunce.

If I were a moderator I would delete the whole thread and anyone posting on it including me.

LOL, sounds like you do care!

Damn CAL had to come in and ruin everything for you, things were going so good with your UAL capital.

You know what. Great advice, NOT worth it!

signing off.

have a great weekend and cya guys on line!

cheers.

I don't care one greasy fart.

My response to the OP was merely an attempt to highlight his attempt to rile the blue team and to show what a joke unity is at this point. It was also a reflection of my boredom on this overnight. You guys are really entertaining.

The capital was going to be spent either way, either on you or USAIR. When a CEO decides that he wants to screw with the troops he's going to do it. Just ask the EAL and TWA guys. And when another group aids and abets his plan its worth pointing out. Things can change fast in this business. Perhaps they will change next week.

:D

Just curious, were the TWA pilots foolish for filing a suit againt ALPA, that seems to be working out pretty well for them?

Did they get the SLI changed???

That DFR is a different animal all together. 11 years and counting and has it materially helped any TWA pilot?? After all the dust settles and the attorneys are paid it will be a pittance that ends up in the hands of the individual affected pilots.

The only winners are the lawyers and I know what matters most is billable hours. Step right up and file your law suit. Lawyers like fancy cars too.

Further in the TWA DFR case vs.ALPA, they may have won the battle but still end up loosing the war. American plans on closing STL as hub in essence removing the protections the TWA had/have. What to do??....of course this America.....file suit.

The true winners............lawyers.

Pilots wonder: Here we go again? « Uncategorized « Green Jacobson P.C.

x2!!! The CAL MEC should hang their heads in shame. Brethren my butt.

J

The last sentence makes my point once again. Stay classy cal pilot !

Wait a second...I just pointed how your attempt at trying to make a point was erroneous and somehow you're a class act??

No wonder you think Furlough=robust career

If we see no lawsuits and attempt to decertify ALPA after the award then I will feel bad, but something tells me that some UAL pilots are already getting the lawyers salivating at the upcoming litigation...

So because we do not agree, and you lose the argument (pay banding) then unity is destroyed?? I see, as long as we do as you want then you are on board. That is not unity.

BINGO! At least some of the CAL bubba's "get it"

I am a ZIT....."get it"

Stay Classy KILDER!

There is always a chance for a lawsuit but it does not necessarily mean they will prevail. If I were to worry at ALPA National, I'd worry about being decertified on UAL's property after the smoke clears on this merger. There is a lot of angst about the way ALPA has handled this merger and the fact the Regional's, who have different needs and desires than the Major's, out number us and therefore tend to push ALPA in directions that is counter to OUR needs

The lawyers are working on a contingency and will no doubt make a lot of money, but the subject was will the pilots be better off for having filed a lawsuit. The answer is clearly yes. It may have taken years, but the TWA pilots prevailed and are presently calculating damages. They will be made whole by ALPA for not being fairly represented, and at some point in the future, ALPA will realize that when they won the right to represnt a pilot group, they have the obligation to represent all of them equally.

Will it change the American seniority list? No.
Will the TWA pilots be made whole?.....doubt it. I'm guessing they will be lucky to see 10 cents on the dollar by the time it reaches their hands.

My whole point is rarely if ever does a lawsuit change a federally arbitrated, "agreed to" binding agreement. While many will point to USAirways as an example of proving this wrong, that simply isn't true. The hold up is one side refuses to negotiate so the list will not see the light of day. The SLI will follow the USAirways pilots, even into the merger with AA. There will not be a do over because one side disagrees.

Sleeves,

The unity issue is framed by many instances, not just the idiotic pay banding compromise.

Don't forget about the training debacle when the CAL MEC decided to thumb their noses at us when our training and procedures underwent wholesale and idiotic changes nearly by fiat Opportunity lost, division created.

Don't forget about the chance to put the screws to the company during the profit sharing debacle. Opportunity lost, and division created.

Don't forget about the numerous times during JCBA negotiations JPOS agreed to agree with the UAL MEC and then instantly changed his tune the minute they were in front of the company negotiators or the times when our moves were telegraphed to the company ahead of time.

Don't forget about Ben's letter and now Oscars "press to test" on the other forum.

Don't forget about LUAL MIGS now flying for CAL getting tossed out of a union meeting.

I'm sure that there are more, these are just the ones that pop into my head. Perhaps some others will add to the list.

And your SLI proposal, which puts guys with 15-16 years of longevity behind your recent hires is simply idiotic and not worth comment. Basically to us its an extended middle finger and seniority grab.

The TWA pilots have not gotten a penny and they can't even come up with a coherent theory of damages. This is 12 years after the integration and they still can't figure it out. They have only temporarily won a verdict that says at least one pilot was damaged by one dollar. Wait until they hear the testimony that American was going to shut them down if they did not change their scope clause. What are their damages then?

Some jury also awarded a lady $20 million for spilling coffee but she never got that money. It's not over until it's over.

Liebeck v. McDonalds

No. You're off by 17.3M. She was awarded 2.7 million but that is not the whole story. McDonalds had an opportunity to settle, but chose to litigate. They lost in large part because they were such tools during the lead up to the trial. The jury went nuts with the punitive award because they were sick of what McDonals had done.

Like most fascinating headlines, you only get about one percent of the whole story. The WSJ wrote an excellent piece which detailed the case if you care to read it. If not, here's the Cliff Notes version. WIKI doesn't to the whole story justice.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I thought we put an end to this with the JCBA...

Kilder,

And no wonder you think that no furlough = staple job

I don't believe in that...Our list is based on the ALPA merger tenets, and that is how the list should look based on the movement, growth and efficiency of the CAL pilots compared to the stagnation, shrinkage and overstaffed situation of the UAL pilots...

But we shall see in less than a week...

OM/JB...
I need to correct you (and others) about the above statement. And since I was at the meeting, I feel I have a right to speak (write).

Two LUAL Furloughs/CAL Newhires were asked to leave when TM (part of the LCAL Merger Committee) got up to do a presentation and Q&A. No one was "tossed out of a union meeting".
The two pilots in question made no fuss... didn't object nor did Rob S (LUAL NYC VC) complain. They were out of the room for maybe 15 mins.

Had they said something.. I would image the outcome would have been different.

On numerous forums/threads, the phrases "Kicked Out" and "Tossed" has been used. That is just not true and is sensationalizing what happened.

We have a long way to go before there is unity with this new, combined Pilot Group. Come Tues (Aug 27) we will see which names are on the ballot and hopefully continue to make small steps towards Unity.
But pilots continuing to write posts about something that they were not actually at does not help. Just my opinion~

Motch

Motch,

You know I respect your opinion, but I will have to disagree on this one. If I was in a room full of peers and I was "asked to leave", I would not argue at the time as it would be fruitless, but obviously no one attending a meeting would choose to leave on their own so whether it was a polite request or not, the pilots were "asked to leave"="kicked out"="tossed out". If you are trying to build unity you don't keep secrets, you discuss your concerns openly, intelligently, and with an open mind. Asking a fellow member of ALPA to leave an ALPA meeting because they are affiliated with another group is to me not unlike interning Japanese during WWII. It is prejudicial and short sighted, and I must admit very much in keeping with what I have come to expect from the CAL-ALPA leadership. All in all the story leaves a horribly bitter taste in my mouth, and I will be coming to New York on the 76 soon enough so I'll be flying with some of the pilots at this meeting for sure. I only hope we can all keep this out of the cockpits. Good-news is I have never had anything less than a stellar experience with CAL pilots that I meet on the line, and I fully anticipate that will hold true in the future.

Joe

Mitch, was any reason given why? They were paying dues to LCAL, one, and, two, any sensitive strategies having to so with the merger seems behind us now. The arbs decisions are done, they're just dotting the i's now. In your opinion, having heard what was discussed for these 15 minutes, do you think this was necessary?

Why would they be asked to leave? That makes no sense???

They were taking bets on how many LUAL lawsuits were coming:rolleyes:

Guys..
I'm gonna make this last post regarding this issue and then I'm done with it. Take it for what it's worth but at the end of the day.. whatever.

1) I have been "Kicked out" of clubs/bars in both NYC and other places (in my lifetime). It was always due to a fight or argument. In every case, it was "heated" and I was not welcomed back in!
In the case of the 2 pilots in question- nothing was heated and they were welcomed back.
B) The idea that these two individuals wouldn't voice their opinion is (in my opinion) FALSE. Both spoke out loud during the meeting about issues and one was present at the Feb meeting where I attempted to Recall both Capt & FO Reps. This pilot is definitely not afraid to stand up and be heard. They were asked to leave by someone (either the Reps or the speaker) because there was going to be discussions from a Merger Committee member and they (Capt/FO/MCmember) felt that it was a CAL issue.
[My opinion.. after all was said and done, there was nothing super secret or "classified" that would have been an issue. But that was my opinion After The Fact]

iii) How about you guys reach out to the two members themselves.. or to Rob S WHO WAS ALSO PRESENT and asked to step out! Ask them how bad this was/is and what should be done about it.
Also.. how many of you have written to Tara Cook and asked her about it. She was/is the sitting FO Rep and is trying to get on the Ballot for FO Rep?

It's over.. a handful of guys are trying to make it out to be more than it was.
I also want to add that last year I attempted to attend a LUAL Local Council meeting. This was after the Profit Sharing Debacle. My Guard buddy was going and I was going to join him. A couple of days before the meeting he told me that he had spoken with his Rep (can't remember which one..) and was told that it was not a good idea for me to attend.
Ok.. no worries. Life went on.

Come Tues we will have names on the Ballots to choose from.
I hope mine is one of them.
With regards to the Capt Rep.. it will be "interesting" to see which names make it on. I have my hopes there, along with RV (possibly the only name) for SecTres!.
I suggest that everyone from the New, NYC Council 5 get involved and reach out to the candidates to see who earns their vote.

Have a good one~
Motch