Originally Posted by Birddog

Actually, I believe Ben didn't get to read this resolution until the day of the meeting. He was not at the meeting for the flooring of the resolution or the vote as he had to leave early. This resolution was written by a former L-UA pilot as a compromise. MOU 14 was wrong and two wrongs don't make a right but this resolution basically functions like MOU 14. If flying returns the displaced pilots have a right to that flying as in MOU 14. I could actually argue the rights should last 24 months and then the resolution would function identically to MOU 14.

By reactions on both sides it probably is a good compromise resolution.


Dogg

Originally Posted by GoCats67

This idea is one that would put us square in line with the phrase unintended consequences.

Fast forward to the future with this new rule in place:

UCH decides to decrease the flying on aircraft type "A" and grow flying on aircraft type "B" because of seasonal demand. Type "B" is the next lower paying aircraft, so when the pilots are displaced from "A" they go to "B". 6 months later the seasonal demand causes UCH to increase the flying on type "A" and decrease the flying on type "B". Because of the new rule the pilots with grandfather rights return to "A" and need only 5 days of training. (gone off of aircraft less than 12 months) UCH is very happy!!! 6 months later, due to seasonal demand, UCH decides to reduce the flying again on type "A" and increase the flying on type "B". The pilots are displaced and go back to "B" (keeping as much pay as they can). The pilots need only 5 days of training to go back to aircraft "B". (gone off of aircraft less than 12 months) UCH is even more happy!!! They have found a new way to adjust their flying with the wind and not have it cost them nearly as much as it used to, making this the new paradigm and a plan that was thought of to help a few pilots feel better when they got displaced has turned into a major give to the company that makes displacements far less costly and thus more common!

Displacements suck, I get it! Been there done that!!

Let's not make it more enticing for the company to do so, by reducing the costs.

Originally Posted by AllenAllert

Thank You - "Unintended Consequences" is a good explanation of the shortsightedness of Ben's deal. I don't think Ben cares as long as he gets what he wants. In this case, it's not just keeping his Captains seat in Houston, it's more politically motivated. He's burned many bridges and called just about all his favors on the MEC. The sad thing is he doesn't care about the "Unintended Consequences" and is willing to burn the house to get his way. Unfortunately, at the expense of the entire United pilot group.

The "brain surgeon" thinks Ben needs to let it go and do the right thing for ALL United Pilots.

Originally Posted by Birddog

Actually, I believe Ben didn't get to read this resolution until the day of the meeting. He was not at the meeting for the flooring of the resolution or the vote as he had to leave early. This resolution was written by a former L-UA pilot...

Originally Posted by Scrappy

Get over it. Live YOUR life. Come to work, be a professional, go home. All the energy you expend constantly talking about Ben and how the lcal pilots are out to get you is truly amazing.

The ship has sailed. Move on and get along.

Originally Posted by AllenAllert

I should give you the same advice but I think the professional comment would stump you.

Why do you insist I have a LCAL problem? It's people like yourself and Ben that perpetuate the rift between the 2 groups. The only reference I've made to LCAL is the attempt by Ben to work a deal with management and attempt to get the MEC to go along to increase his creditablity with management. Isn't that the way LCAL MEC worked back in the day.

It's people like yourself and Ben that try to turn the Houston surplus into a LCAL vs LUAL thing when in fact it's the company doing the surplus. Ben turned it into politics by negotiating "a company deal" that has far greater implications for ALL United pilots going forward than the few pilots being surplused in Houston.

Surpluses are not good for anybody but there is no need to create a situation that makes it a tool for management to use at the expense and QOL of ALL United Pilots.

Stop crying victim............

Originally Posted by AllenAllert

I should give you the same advice but I think the professional comment would stump you.

Why do you insist I have a LCAL problem? It's people like yourself and Ben that perpetuate the rift between the 2 groups.

Originally Posted by Andy

I haven't noticed Scrappy making a bunch of divisive comments.

We MUST start working as a single pilot group. Toning down the divisive comments (which the majority are coming from my fellow LUAL pilots) would go a long way toward unifying us. You guys are just making management's job easier.

Originally Posted by Andy

We MUST start working as a single pilot group. Toning down the divisive comments (which the majority are coming from my fellow LUAL pilots) would go a long way toward unifying us. You guys are just making management's job easier.

Originally Posted by Andy

I find it disappointing that you are defending union members putting in a bunch of overtime while there were pilots on the street. I find that behavior reprehensible and scablike. Those pilots were taking away the jobs of those of us who were on the street - you can spin it however you want, but it kept a lot of pilots out on the street longer than they would have been.

There were several other union actions that were voted on that also negatively impacted pilots on furlough but I'd prefer to not dredge up the past. All that thinking about the hypocrisy of those actions will do is anger me; nothing good will come from it.