Originally Posted by svergin (Post 2015385)

So what I'm hearing is that pilots on reserve want BOTH pay raises AND work rule improvements just for them. While lineholding pilots should ONLY get pay raises. Somehow pilots on reserve (many who have bid up to reserve for the extra payrate knowing what reserve was) are getting nothing out of the AIP while the lineholders get all the benefit?

Most pilots if given the choice between reserve not changing and taking an immediate 16% pay raise OR a great reserve system with no pay raises would overwhelmingly take the pay raises.

Voting no won't make reserve better in the near future. Reserve will still stink, and you'll be getting 16% less pay.

Originally Posted by svergin (Post 2015385)

So what I'm hearing is that pilots on reserve want BOTH pay raises AND work rule improvements just for them. While lineholding pilots should ONLY get pay raises. Somehow pilots on reserve (many who have bid up to reserve for the extra payrate knowing what reserve was) are getting nothing out of the AIP while the lineholders get all the benefit?

Most pilots if given the choice between reserve not changing and taking an immediate 16% pay raise OR a great reserve system with no pay raises would overwhelmingly take the pay raises.

Voting no won't make reserve better in the near future. Reserve will still stink, and you'll be getting 16% less pay.

Originally Posted by Learjet driver (Post 2015473)

I think this is what 90% of the rational United pilots
Think.

Originally Posted by BMEP100 (Post 2015178)

Dude?, well anyway my understanding is that the former UAL pilots have received 100% of their lump, whereas the former CAL pilots have not - as a result of the agreement to withhold 5% pending any possible lawsuit by what are now the plaintiffs. So yes, I can blame ALPA for such a boneheaded provision in the first place. So, are you claiming the former UAL pilot had 5% withheld also? That is even worse.

Leaving an opening for a lawsuit like that is akin to leaving a steak laying on the back of the couch then blaming the dog that climbed on the furniture for acting like a dog.

In any case, it seems silly to agree to a new agreement when the company is still holding back 5%.

Originally Posted by buscappy (Post 2015422)

Shack !

and funny on the reverse pass priority!

maybe add netjets membership for out-of-domicile reserves who need to make a trip. spare no expense for reserves. hell I'll bid 767 Cap and sit reserve in a Lauderdale beach condo if the knucklehead junior pukes get their way on the reserve rules ⛳️🍻😎

Originally Posted by BMEP100 (Post 2015178)

Dude?, well anyway my understanding is that the former UAL pilots have received 100% of their lump, whereas the former CAL pilots have not - as a result of the agreement to withhold 5% pending any possible lawsuit by what are now the plaintiffs. So yes, I can blame ALPA for such a boneheaded provision in the first place. So, are you claiming the former UAL pilot had 5% withheld also? That is even worse.

Leaving an opening for a lawsuit like that is akin to leaving a steak laying on the back of the couch then blaming the dog that climbed on the furniture for acting like a dog.

In any case, it seems silly to agree to a new agreement when the company is still holding back 5%.

Originally Posted by gettinbumped (Post 2015513)

Where did you hear the LUAL pilots got 100%??? Still waiting for the 5% just like you. You can blame the greedy individual pilots for that one, not ALPA.

So you want to pass on a 16% pay raise to protest not getting your extra $2000 or so yet?!! Holy moly. That'll show em!! That logic fails ANY reasonableness test