I'd say its obvious that in two days there won't be any "UAL types" and "CAL types" and that the most qualified individual who would do the best job should be Chairman. Once the integration is complete all our future objectives should be the same regardless of what color uniform you were waiting on Sept. 3. Your "I'd say its obvious" attitude is what I think a lot of "CAL types" have found objectionable in our past dealings with some "UAL types".

^^^^ THIS ^^^^

Well said 13E44!

Hafa Adai,

SP

So, you are arguing that I am a 1%er? I, who hold no position, do not aspire to a postion, post on APC for enjoyment, and I am a 1%er?

Craig G. was angry because after the contract was signed Continental pilots received hundreds of new captain positions and United pilots received zero. Continental pilots believed they were due those positions and United pilots feel those positions were stolen from them. ALPA is a union forced to represent diverse interests and the interests of Continental pilots did not align with the interests of United pilots and Craig decided to argue that a contract was ignored. His interpretation of the contract was flawed, but that does not mean he is a bad person. Your comment proves that your apology was "Half Hearted" at best.


Oh, and by the way, my name is Joe Peck, and I hope you will have the courage to identify yourself to me when we fly together as we are on the same fleet so I am sure the day will come.

You may want to re-read my comments. I only mentioned Gullaksen as to expand on the comments you used to defend him. You compared him to a MLK. Accused all pilots that upgraded between 87-95. (By the way that is about all of the capts we have left ) as not having earned our ratings and a few other unsavory comments. I just thought you would be quick to defend the CO MC in a similar way.

Didn't the CAL MC feel this new evidence was important and needed to be addressed? We will see tomorrow if the CAL MC ask for a TRO. I hope not but I believe a can of worms has been opened with the actions of Gullaksen and his tin hat group.

I saw no new information in either the TRO filing or the CO MC filing. The TRO filing held no ground with the judge. Did the information hold any ground with the arbs? We don't know yet, or at least most of us don't. It was presented once already, months ago.

Almost sounds like the CO MC does know that that argument was already dismissed, and the arbs didn't choose the CO moonshot ISL proposal.

We will see tomorrow.

Just a different view on this. Based on seeing the Gullaksen lawsuit, would it not have been in interest of both MC from insuring they presented all evidence to prevent any DFR? More of a c.y.a then attempts to influence the outcome.

Personally I think the LCAL MC over reached and also exposed themselves for ignoring the ALPA policy should the result be favorable to the LUAL side.

Or perhaps the evidence was previously accepted by the Arbs and was rejected for being redundant. I'm also of the opinion that one mans moonshot is another mans extremely tangible position.

As you stated, we'll see tomorrow.

Maybe not...

There was no way the arbitrators were going to reopen the case in order to accept more evidence on an argument that was already made during the testimony phase. The CAL team already argued and provided numerical evidence claiming that the UAL side was overstaffed as far as A320 FOs were concerned. This last filing only added the company's testimony to that same fact, verifying that the numbers did represent over staffing at UAL.

Yup.

Because if UAL is only known for ONE THING....it's over staffing and a reluctance to furlough "excess" pilots.

:rolleyes: