No bubble busted here - I do understand your feelings waiting for that day, unfortunately?

Yes really. The NAT Tracks do not work on the same rules as the Pacific. This is from the most current manual. Be sure and read the bold print.


http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps9b9aacfe.jpg

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.

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."

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!:rolleyes:

You guys amaze me! Go ahead and vote YES to give away scope, accept pay less than Delta, etc but you better wear a piece of jewelry or else! Forest for the trees...

Yup.

And you seem just as guilty of shortsightedness, simply in a different way, if you don't understand the reason for the pin.

Just saying.

Sunvox:

Just so we maintain some precision, I was incorrect and missed your post was from the NA MNPSA OPs MAN and not the FOM.

Sorry for the error.

You're right, I had no CAL scabs to learn from. What I did have was a family of striking CAL pilots to learn from. You are not and never will be part of that group and like your peers(notice lower case) you chose greed over the collective good. One again, the cal pilots find themselves on the low road.

Regularguy,

Did you willingly quit United to go to work for Continental?

hope

"Did you willingly quit United to go to work for Continental? "

What? Where did you get that idea?

How do I say this nicely? When I got hired by UAL in late 70s CAL was my second choice. They had a reputation on the West Coast that was above everyone. I applied and UAL called and this is where I've been since.

If I had been hired at CAL I'd been a "crawl back" who held out until the end from the strike of 83. Had I been looking for a job CAL would have been my last choice up until the Bethune era. In the past few years (prior to the merge) I have been encouraging the young pilot I know looking for a job to apply at CAL because of the age of the Seniority list and the expected airplane orders.

The only reason I would have "willingly quit" UAL would have come from crossing the 85 picket line (I didn't BTW I carried a sign until the last day). UAL, especially in the early day after the strike, was a horrible place for scabs to work. Frankly I don't know how they stayed with us.

Moving on, any more questions?

How about you, have you ever really walked a picket line at UAL (or anywhere else) or just talk tough about it?

Hope

Let me correct one thing.

I'd have only been a "crawl back" had I not got a job elsewhere as have many of my fellow UAL pilots and friends who hired on at UAL after the 83 strike. But, I also know a few who didn't get hired at another airline and held out until the end of the 83 strike and went back to work at CAL.

+1 That about sums up Hope!!

Why am I not surprised.

All of this "unity" that is allegedly displayed by wearing the pin means NOTHING when you are constantly bending over and voting yes to save YOUR butt. Give me a break.

ORD,CLE and LGA

I guess the highlited above caused me to think you had left United for Continental. I take it that you have retired then or maybe one of those selected few in the top 100 of the combined list.

Hope

I still work for the New UAL, as do all of us, so the UAL I started at in 78 is gone, caput, nada, doesn't exist anymore. That's why I'm Ex-UAL.

There is nothing left of the United Airlines of old and the sooner many of us get over that the happier they'll be.

Retirement? Coming up, but I'm hoping the 787 will open before then with 25 airplanes, if not I guess the 747 will be my current and last stop.

Ps. I'm one of those who hates the loss of UAL but is happy the deal was made. Personally I had my doubts either UAL or CAL would make it into the next decade.

Hope and others who seem to think walking the picket line makes them a hero. Here's my take, it was what I was expected to do and a part of being a pilot for United Airlines. I did my duty then as a part of the pilot group as a whole as I do it now by following and supporting the contract we all live under today.

We, who walked the line just did what we had to do, nothing more, nothing less and I believe the expectation for all you who may be called in the future will do the same.

Sunvox

Please go to our WOM AT10.11 under Mach Number Technique and it says this"It is acceptable to use the Cost Index/ECON to maintain assign Mach..."

So what trumps?

Is it International Law to not use ECON or is it a route regulation to maintain assigned Mach?

Damned pesky details!

I fix the Mach per your reference to avoid writing reports because of a violation of maintaining assigned Mach, per the FOM.

These conversations sure weed out the details. But why would any one risk not maintaining the assigned Mach by using ECON? I guess some just like to live life on the edge!

;)

Threads like this make me wish I was still in prison with James.
No Internet in the big house.


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...6FzrR5mL469u0A

Just answering your question champ ------ would have never brought it up had you not asked - I'll be your huckleberry!

Old

"Threads like this make me wish I was still in prison with James."

So what do you want, all the drama of name calling like, I'm a UAL pilot or CAL pilot (enter your choice) and the rest of you suck?

Well I'm an Ex-UAL pilot and I think this airline (not sure what to call it anymore) will get by.

Yawnnnnnn

Hope

I rarely talk about the strike of 85 anymore (I got over it a long time ago, and I'm neither a champ or a hero because of it), I do talk about how the new SOPs are _________ You can fill in the blank(s).

Moving on....

You are comparing apples to oranges. The first involves separate pilot groups with differing external influences. The second concerns a combined group under a single mec and integrated seniority list.

Nope. Poor attempt at justification for giving in though. All the tough talk about slick ties and then you all make a bunch of excuses just to save YOUR butt. When it really counted, you all whined and complained about "perceived" injustices and voted in a substandard TA all in the name of taking care of yourself. Tell me how THAT isn't more scab like than someone that doesn't wear a 10 cent piece of jewelry.

You allude to our making excuses to save ourselves. What did we need saving from during the first three years?

Hint, that was a rhetorical question.

You digress from the original issue, but I'll play along. Just because you say you're scared of the boogey man doesn't make him real. Did you even read the TPA? This nonsense of taking CA seats, routes, etc from the LUAL side is utter rubbish. You can continue to play the game that LUAL was a healthy airline, but deep down you know that LUAL was in big, big trouble and the merger resuscitated your careers. The TPA protected 100% of CAL flying but only 90% of the LUAL flying. YOUR MEC agreed to this. Merger of equals? Yeah right.

Btw - My question was NOT rhetorical. Slick tie or internet tough guy who votes yes to save his career and then plays Mr. High and Mighty? Who most resembles the scab?

http://treasure.diylol.com/uploads/p...-on-9b1d80.jpg

Solid Gold!

You mean like the recent email from the MEC ----- no wonder some people scurry when the lights come on. Would anybody care to step into the light and explain this or should we just chalk it up to "that's the way it's done around here".




March 14, 2014

This is an update from the ISL Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC).

At our meeting conducted on March 11, 2014, the full DRC determined that it has jurisdiction over L-UAL pilot Claims #2 and #3 which are described below. However, the DRC representatives deadlocked as to whether each claim has merit. As a result, these claims will be submitted to arbitration under the Dispute Resolution Procedures contained in Exhibit B of the EKN Award.

To date, the L-UAL DRC members have presented three claims from their pilots to the full DRC, each of which challenge actions by the Company that they claim are in violation of the EKN Award—specifically the Company’s actions in awarding positions based on legacy CAL bids 13-08, 14-02, and 14-02A after the implementation date of the ISL. Claim #1 challenges the Company’s award of training positions to CAL pilots in September, October, and November of 2013. Claim #2 challenges the Company’s award of displacement rights to CAL pilots in December, January, and February. Claim # 3 challenges the Company’s award of lateral positions/direct advancements, (e.g. IAH B737 CA to LAX B737 CA) in October and November of last year.

Under the Dispute Resolution Procedures, after a claim is presented to the full DRC, the DRC representatives must meet and make a decision as to whether (1) the DRC has jurisdiction to hear the claim, and (2) whether the claim has merit. If the DRC deadlocks over either issue, then the Procedures provide for arbitration (allowing a maximum of 5 hearing days) to resolve the dispute. If a claim is found to have merit, either by agreement of the DRC or through arbitration, it is then presented to the Company.

At earlier meetings, the full DRC determined that it has jurisdiction over Claim #1 but then deadlocked on the merits of the claim. The impasse will be resolved in hearings before Arbitrator Dana Eischen, the chairman of the ISL arbitration panel, and is scheduled to be heard in Washington, DC on May 23, continuing on May 27-29.

The Claim #2 hearings are scheduled to be heard in Washington, D.C., on July 7-11 before Arbitrator Dennis Nolan, another member of the EKN Arbitration Board. The DRC is currently in the process of selecting an arbitrator for Claim #3 and the dates for those hearings have yet to be determined.

The DRC procedures provide that the arbitrator shall make every effort to issue a written award within ten business days after the conclusion of the hearing, so we expect to receive a decision on Claim #1 prior to the arbitrations for Claim #2 and #3.

We acknowledge that this is a lengthy process. It is the same one that Delta and Northwest used following their SLI proceedings. The full DRC is handling these claims as expeditiously as possible.

The extended timeline has largely been caused by the scheduling difficulties associated with securing dates with high profile arbitrators. We appreciate your patience as the Dispute Resolution Procedure runs its course.



AIr Line Pilots Association, International
Air Line Pilots Association, International

Sorry, I was on topic. Many, if not most voted yes to stop the seniority grab of the first three years. Those who voted yes, did so to save their collective butts from the likes of you.

Slick ties will be treated/thought of differently. Some might speak to you, but inside are thinking something completely different. The other extreme, well... Although not on the same level, ask your scab buddies how they were regarded. You might call it internet tough guy, I call it reality. Enjoy your career.

----------- deleted ----------

Where would we be today without the UPA? That is the answer. 67% caved, gave up, crossed the bargaining line, cowled, voted yes because _______ ... I am certain that the breakdown of the vote would show that the UPA didn't pass on the LCAL side. Sorry, if you voted yes, you own it ... I have to live with it ... a common theme now for us ex-LCAL now UCH UAL pilots.

Yep, like I said. Tough talk, but when push comes to shove you think about YOURSELF first - yet you call people that don't wear a ten cent piece of jewelry "scab-like"!!!! YOU and others with your mentality just don't get it. Every single pilot could wear the pin, but it means nothing if their ACTIONS (ie vote, holding up the contract, etc) don't back it up. Seems like lying to yourself is a popular thing amongst many of the "slick tie chest thumpers".

Hate to be bearer of the bad news but the LCAL side pushed it over the top. Those guys finally realized that JP was about to sell everybody out and joined the LUAL side(good move) to put a stop to it. Plus it gave them a contract with much better working conditions. Guess money and fame are not that important to all on you side but hey, if you want to be special, we'll give you that special treatment.

Another bit of hypocrisy from the LUAL side is how while you had no contractual protections to the keep a 737 base from opening in SFO, it was not opened because of the emotional impact LUAL types would have. Yet the LCAL emotional impact from us being the only group without PS is discounted as "it was not in your contract, why do you expect it."

What we really need are some cool alpa stickers, or lanyards that read, "ALPA" or "Scope". The scabs love wearing that stuff. I counted 12 bits of alpa flare on one scab in the wx room a while back.

Did you have a point or was that just another LCAL rant.

And you wonder why the airline community looked-down on the CAL guys. I'll rest my case with your statement.

Ha! More proof of your alternate reality! LUAL was considered the lowest of the low! EVERY single pax that I've spoken to since the merger - EVERY ONE - laments the day of the merger and wishes that Continental never merged with the anchor of UAL. Pre-merger, UAL pilots were literally begging to join with CAL. Not once did I ever hear a pax or employee hope that we merged with UAL. The common belief was UAL would soon liquidate and then all the legacies would pick up the pieces. (Of course, I'm expecting you to deny any of this since all that seems to count in many LUAL pilots' eyes, particularly your merger committee and former employee mR. Eichen, is the ONE year that you all actually made a profit in the last TEN plus!)

You are either flame baiting or completely delusional...

Since you know this what is the break down of the vote, how many cal how many ual how many cap how many fo's??