Contract extension AIP bullet points
11-22-2015 | 05:11 PM
#171
UCH Pilot
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 776
Likes: 1
From: 787
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.
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.
11-22-2015 | 05:53 PM
#173
Banned
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
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.
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.
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 ⛳️🍻😎
11-22-2015 | 07:32 PM
#174
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
From: 30 West
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.
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.
Think.
11-22-2015 | 08:19 PM
#177
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,253
Likes: 0
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%.
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%.
11-22-2015 | 08:22 PM
#178
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
From: UALFO 737
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 ⛳️🍻😎
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 ⛳️🍻😎
11-22-2015 | 09:24 PM
#179
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 0
From: A320 Cap
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%.
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%.
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
11-22-2015 | 09:37 PM
#180
Don't say Guppy
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
From: Guppy driver
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
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
FWIW. I have voted no for everything I have ever voted for at UAL. I will vote yes for this. A yes vote, for the first time. I voted no for contract 2000. WB guys got a 32% raise. NB guys got a 18 % raise. This was BS.
I was a WB guy that got the big raise. We should have all got the big raise.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
