Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > United
CAL MC Last Minute Filing >

CAL MC Last Minute Filing

Notices

CAL MC Last Minute Filing

Old 09-01-2013, 04:10 PM
  #41  
Gets Weekends Off
 
13n144e's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 787 CA
Posts: 423
Default

Originally Posted by 757Driver View Post
I'd say its obvious that a UAL type should be Chairman and a CAL type should be V/C.
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".

Last edited by 13n144e; 09-01-2013 at 04:29 PM.
13n144e is offline  
Old 09-01-2013, 05:20 PM
  #42  
Gets Weekends Off
 
SONORA PASS's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Left - Dodge Caravan
Posts: 357
Default

Originally Posted by 13n144e View Post
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...
^^^^ THIS ^^^^

Well said 13E44!

Hafa Adai,

SP
SONORA PASS is offline  
Old 09-01-2013, 06:44 PM
  #43  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Sunvox's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
Default

Originally Posted by Lambourne View Post
What I find missing from this thread is sunvox comparing the CAL MC filing to MLK's civil rights quest and defending the MC for doing what they feel is right and believe to be righteous. These are the arguments he made for Gullaksen's antics. These are the 1% everyone is talking a out.

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.
Sunvox is offline  
Old 09-02-2013, 05:18 AM
  #44  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Lambourne's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: B777 Capt
Posts: 844
Default

Originally Posted by Sunvox View Post
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?
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.
Lambourne is offline  
Old 09-02-2013, 05:44 AM
  #45  
Don't say Guppy
 
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
Default

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.
Probe is offline  
Old 09-02-2013, 06:13 AM
  #46  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 439
Default

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.
El10 is offline  
Old 09-02-2013, 06:25 AM
  #47  
Need More Callouts
 
757Driver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Unbridled Enthusiasm
Posts: 2,143
Default

Originally Posted by Probe View Post
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.
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.
757Driver is offline  
Old 09-02-2013, 07:25 AM
  #48  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 93
Default

Originally Posted by El10 View Post
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.

Maybe not...
DMC12 is offline  
Old 09-02-2013, 07:36 AM
  #49  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Toddnel's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: EWR 777 FO
Posts: 378
Default

Originally Posted by 757Driver View Post
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.

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.
Toddnel is offline  
Old 09-02-2013, 08:31 AM
  #50  
Gets Weekends Off
 
cadetdrivr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Default

Originally Posted by Toddnel View Post
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.

cadetdrivr is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SpecialTracking
United
60
03-13-2013 08:40 PM
WatchThis!
United
254
02-10-2013 06:07 PM
Flyguppy
United
227
10-26-2012 03:23 PM
Redeye Pilot
United
112
11-07-2010 01:31 PM
fireman0174
Major
3
06-18-2006 04:57 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices