Search

Notices

Bump Rights

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-17-2014 | 03:13 PM
  #31  
Airhoss's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,738
Likes: 5
From: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Default

Originally Posted by SEDPA
Uhh ... no. It's a result of what L-UAL brought to the table. The fruits of the merger that so many of you were (and still are) hungry for wasn't to be had until there was a JCBA ...
The reason that we have this contract was that Jeffy and JP were playing the two sides against each other. UCH was RAPING the UAL side and lathering any and all gains on the CAL side. The JCBA was the ONLY thing that was going to stop it. Jeffy was doing it for monetary purposes and JP was doing it for perceived ISL gains. Win one for Jeffy. JP rightfully got it inserted and broken off way up where the sun don't shine.

during the time from OMD to effective date of the JCBA, UCH managed TWO separate pilot groups under TWO separate contracts ...
See above comment on playing two sides against each other.

the CAL contract grew pilots jobs, while the UAL contract didn't ... even if UCH wanted to grow the UAL side, the L-UAL contract DIDN'T ALLOW IT ...
Complete and total fabrication. UAL had work rules, CAL did not. The spoils went to the side that was cheaper to grow AKA the L-CAL pilot group.

you can thank the MP change for the delay extracting your windfall and having to sleep in the bed you made (err living with the contract you brought to the table) ... Now back to the regularly scheduled humptity bumpity programming.
If by windfall you are alluding to the ISL then you must be completely and totally out of your ever loving mind. The L-CAL ISL proposal was quite possibly the most juvinle and ridiculous pile of greed induced wishful thinking to ever make it to an arbitration board. It was almost immediately laughed right off the table. Not even a good try, it was simply pie in the sky, without merit, logic or any chance of success.
Reply
Old 10-17-2014 | 04:39 PM
  #32  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by SEDPA
Uhh ... no. It's a result of what L-UAL brought to the table. The fruits of the merger that so many of you were (and still are) hungry for wasn't to be had until there was a JCBA ... during the time from OMD to effective date of the JCBA, UCH managed TWO separate pilot groups under TWO separate contracts ... the CAL contract grew pilots jobs, while the UAL contract didn't ... even if UCH wanted to grow the UAL side, the L-UAL contract DIDN'T ALLOW IT ... you can thank the MP change for the delay extracting your windfall and having to sleep in the bed you made (err living with the contract you brought to the table) ... Now back to the regularly scheduled humptity bumpity programming.


Sepda,

Guys like you make my life easier. Putt'er there buddy.
Reply
Old 10-17-2014 | 04:46 PM
  #33  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by pilot64golfer
Alot of these guys had their 4th stripe taken away a few years ago for pre-merger "rightsizing", so they know the drill. Some of these guys were Captains from 1999-2010, or many of those years.
Jesus H.
Reply
Old 10-17-2014 | 05:18 PM
  #34  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 308
Likes: 1
Default

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking


Sepda,

Guys like you make my life easier. Putt'er there buddy.
ST:

You have never met me, don't know a damn thing about me, and certainly have never seen me ... enough with the personal attacks.

And before you jump to another false conclusion, I get the playing two sides/divide and conquer sh** ... and I wear mY ALPA pin.
Reply
Old 10-17-2014 | 05:29 PM
  #35  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Likes: 0
Default

I don't need to know you to realize a divisive post via revisionist history. You might wear your pin, but your post says otherwise. As section 6 openers approach, what's more important?
Reply
Old 10-17-2014 | 05:51 PM
  #36  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 308
Likes: 1
Default

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
I don't need to know you to realize a divisive post via revisionist history. You might wear your pin, but your post says otherwise. As section 6 openers approach, what's more important?
Not meant to be divisive ... and not revisionist ... tell me, before May 2010, what was life like at UAL??? Where you taking delivery of new airplanes, opening new routes, adding pilot jobs?? CAL was. CAL contract protected 100% of block hours in the event of a merger, how about UAL? In the interim between OMD and UPA becoming effective, CAL block hours held steady ... and UAL feel slightly ... jobs followed WHAT EACH SIDE BROUGHT TO THE TABLE. And I don't need to know much more about you to know that when the time comes again, you'll have no problem taking what's not yours ... well, to be fair, the arbs gave you what wasn't yours.
Reply
Old 10-17-2014 | 05:53 PM
  #37  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Likes: 0
Default

I truly feel sorry for you.
Reply
Old 10-17-2014 | 06:25 PM
  #38  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
From: Gets weekends off
Default

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
I don't need to know you to realize a divisive post via revisionist history. You might wear your pin, but your post says otherwise. As section 6 openers approach, what's more important?
The next contract will be interesting. Many of the "no" voters were not voting on the merits of the contract, but trying to delay to squeeze out some more Captain bids. Many of the "yes" voters were not voting on the merits of the contract, but voting to stop the windfall.

We will see if this next contract actually passes on its merits and not because of politics.
Reply
Old 10-17-2014 | 06:30 PM
  #39  
APC225's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by pilot64golfer
The next contract will be interesting. Many of the "no" voters were not voting on the merits of the contract, but trying to delay to squeeze out some more Captain bids. Many of the "yes" voters were not voting on the merits of the contract, but voting to stop the windfall.
Many "no" voters were voting no because it was a substandard contract with pathetic retro.
Reply
Old 10-17-2014 | 06:36 PM
  #40  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
From: Gets weekends off
Default

Originally Posted by SEDPA
Not meant to be divisive ... and not revisionist ... tell me, before May 2010, what was life like at UAL??? Where you taking delivery of new airplanes, opening new routes, adding pilot jobs??
Yes. We had 25 787s on order with 25 options, plus 25 A-350s with 25 options. That's 100 widebody aircraft or more than double CALs entire WB fleet including their 767s as "widebody"

As far as adding pilot jobs we were in the same position as CAL, both with pilots on furlough. All hiring and movement that happened 2010-2013 was a post-merger phenomenon. It would likely not have happened without the merger. You really think CAL was going to open bases in DEN, ORD, LAX, and SFO? Really? United bases. United passengers. United flying.

Most importantly we had the cash to backstop the orders for jets, which ended up being used for all the CAL deliveries.

CAL had NO GROWTH aircraft on order. Only replacements. Read the SLI award. No one bought the "double counting" of airplanes (i.e. what was on property plus orders and not counting retirements)

Smisek said CAL would "cease to exist" without the merger, and they were living "hand to mouth" (United had just had 9 straight profitable quarters) so no one buys the revisionist history that CAL was this exploding airline with tons of opportunity, etc.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Dave Behnke
Cargo
109
08-27-2014 01:45 PM
Alighted
Major
13
03-15-2010 01:39 PM
JungleBus
Major
121
12-20-2008 04:13 PM
jungle
Money Talk
8
11-20-2008 07:41 PM
unitedmechs
Military
1
04-19-2008 09:50 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



Your Privacy Choices