Edward
Veteran
This is the new topic & remember folks no personal attacks. Thank you.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
After you are done laughing at the one above, try this one out. It was on justplanenews.com for a while, and then disappeared. I think I saw a Westie post it here, but I can't find it.
February 26, 2008
This is MEC Chairman John McIlvenna with two important items:
Item 1: A330-200 China Flying
Last Friday, at the request of management, your MEC and JNC representatives met with management to discuss future A330-200 flying. Management discussed their vision that it was impractical to fly the new China routes with West crews for a number of reasons and that they did not view China A330-200 flying as "growth" flying under the terms of the Transition Agreement because both East and West fleets are below the fleet maximum numbers allowed. That is to say, management views China A330-200 flying as "replacement" flying.
Late yesterday afternoon, management sent over the attached A330-200 proposed LOA that they preferred to be discussed in JNC talks as they did not want to be perceived to be trying to "whipsaw" East and West pilots against one another.
Late this afternoon, I was informed by management that the East MEC had contacted management and requested that the talks NOT take place under the auspices of JNC talks and that they would instead prefer to speak separately to management to modify the East agreement on a stand alone basis.
At this time, management has indicated they will likely have to engage in these whipsawing talks requested by the East MEC, but they have also not ruled out stand alone talks with the West MEC on future A330-200 flying, with various management sources indicating that Phoenix-Heathrow, Phoenix-Frankfurt, and Phoenix-Tokyo may be started in the 2010 timeframe.
We will continue to keep you informed on this very important issue."
The Alpoids get more desperate by the day.
This is exactly right. In fact I just flew with a captain who was part of this whole mess just after the '85 strike. He was hired after the 570's, did not strike, is not a scab, and was in favor of having his seniority adjusted to go behind the 570's who were hired first. So I'd say his perspective and account of the facts is pretty objective.MY TAKE: This case was about how to handle the seniority of striking workers…not how to merge seniority lists. The ruling did not center on whether DOH was the best method to determine seniority, but WHAT the DOH should be. United management changed their practice of defining when a pilot was hired (from beginning-of-training to reporting-for-duty), and used this change as a basis for favoring the replacement pilots.
You used the same line when posting the fake "USAPA" memo the other day, tripnic. Sorry, no one is buying your "found this on justplanenews but now it's gone" rap. We're not buying the Alpa propaganda you keep pushing for a "laugh," either.
You're a busy guy for someone who just joined this forum last week.
The Alpoids get more desperate by the day.
This is exactly right. In fact I just flew with a captain who was part of this whole mess just after the '85 strike. He was hired after the 570's, did not strike, is not a scab, and was in favor of having his seniority adjusted to go behind the 570's who were hired first. So I'd say his perspective and account of the facts is pretty objective.