Profit Sharing Grievance
#121
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry to "bust your bubble" Hope, you're mixing apples and oranges again!!
Yes LCAL did disappear but, so did "L"UAL soon to be revised in the ops manual!!
We are ALL UAL now. no "L" included!! So, hang on to your crusty attitude as long as you can because in the real near future the majority of the pilots are going to be neither "L" pilots and really won't care what you or I have to say!! I can't wait for that day!!
Yes LCAL did disappear but, so did "L"UAL soon to be revised in the ops manual!!
We are ALL UAL now. no "L" included!! So, hang on to your crusty attitude as long as you can because in the real near future the majority of the pilots are going to be neither "L" pilots and really won't care what you or I have to say!! I can't wait for that day!!
#122
#123
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,559
Likes: 0
From: A Nobody
Sunvox
If you read my complete post you would see that his blanket statement "International Law" is what I am poking at. It is not a blanket statement for all the ClassII nav airspace. You will also notice I state how my flights follow those rules along the NAT Track over the Atlantic, we hard set the cleared MACH. Notice I say cleared MACH that is because some may confuse what is in their FP with the clearance.
In the past UAL actually allowed the use of ECON to meet this restriction, as I stated, when I was in the 767 fleet the management actually encouraged it as long as it met the caveat, You couldn't violate the MACH requirements of the track clearance!
So calm your mules and read before you write. You got to realize each airspace has it own rules and to make a blanket statement like the one made isn't correct. Now let me ask you this, have you ever flown through China or Russian airspace? Is this a blanket statement about them also? Each country and airspace have their own unique rules, it is not a blanket International Law!
Whewww
BTW Did you also notice my instruction to FOs whose Captains fail/refuse to follow the FOM guidance? Write them up! Cover your Ass! Of course let them know you are doing it.
If you read my complete post you would see that his blanket statement "International Law" is what I am poking at. It is not a blanket statement for all the ClassII nav airspace. You will also notice I state how my flights follow those rules along the NAT Track over the Atlantic, we hard set the cleared MACH. Notice I say cleared MACH that is because some may confuse what is in their FP with the clearance.
In the past UAL actually allowed the use of ECON to meet this restriction, as I stated, when I was in the 767 fleet the management actually encouraged it as long as it met the caveat, You couldn't violate the MACH requirements of the track clearance!
So calm your mules and read before you write. You got to realize each airspace has it own rules and to make a blanket statement like the one made isn't correct. Now let me ask you this, have you ever flown through China or Russian airspace? Is this a blanket statement about them also? Each country and airspace have their own unique rules, it is not a blanket International Law!
Whewww
BTW Did you also notice my instruction to FOs whose Captains fail/refuse to follow the FOM guidance? Write them up! Cover your Ass! Of course let them know you are doing it.
#124
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,559
Likes: 0
From: A Nobody
Sunvox:
I'll repost what else I wrote:
"I'm basically lazy and hate writing reports, so on my flights we fix the mach where it's required"
Let me say it again, ..."where it's required!!!!!"
Thanks for posting the FOM, but how does my statement compare to what you shoved in my face? Do you think I don't know it?
Now go and show it in the brief to those Captains who don't follow it on your NAT track flights, before you leave Flight Ops, oops the CPO, oops the Captain wouldn't meet the crew because the FOM only says "should."
I'll repost what else I wrote:
"I'm basically lazy and hate writing reports, so on my flights we fix the mach where it's required"
Let me say it again, ..."where it's required!!!!!"
Thanks for posting the FOM, but how does my statement compare to what you shoved in my face? Do you think I don't know it?
Now go and show it in the brief to those Captains who don't follow it on your NAT track flights, before you leave Flight Ops, oops the CPO, oops the Captain wouldn't meet the crew because the FOM only says "should."
#125
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Make no mistake, the guys who fought the fight at rCAL are not part of the body that makes up ex-CON's of today. They fought a battle and suffered more than many of you will ever understand. For you to attempt to take credit for what those guys did and somehow include yourself with them is wrong - you will never be part of that group.
What your legacy will include is the actions post strike and that's been covered on this and many other forums.
What your legacy will include is the actions post strike and that's been covered on this and many other forums.
#126
Banned
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
#129
Guest
Posts: n/a
They fought a fight that YOU definitely don't appreciate!! Unfortunately, you had no peers (as far as LONG TERM strikers) to learn from when you were in the right seat!! Yes, you had a strike (30 days) and many scabs in that short time but, no one that had to sit out for YEARS which is a whole different ballgame!! I'll be waiting for your excuse!

Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



