2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[700UW]

What does John Carr have to do with this?

He works for the Eastern Territory, not Air Transport, so it seems he is your latest obsession?

 

[737823]

No obsession, I asked you this very question a few weeks ago and you said it would never happen and that fleet and M&R want to be separate now you change the story. John Carr was part of LL 1725 CLT not like he is unconnected to all this.

Josh

 

[700UW]

John Carr has been out of LL1725 for over 10 years come up with something relevant.

Learn to read, I said there was talk of it and it never happened.

Stalker, liar and obsessed that is you.

 

[737823]

I asked numerous times about changes to the DL structure, you said it wouldn't happen regardless of the alliance and merger, 141 will represent ramp and 142 will represent M&R, you know this now you change the story. And you didn't prove anything nor did I disappear.

Josh

 

[robbedagain]

wings  I agree with you    
 
700  do you think it would work out if the 141 and 142 got together again or would it be different

 

[700UW]

No obsession, I asked you this very question a few weeks ago and you said it would never happen and that fleet and M&R want to be separate now you change the story. John Carr was part of LL 1725 CLT not like he is unconnected to all this.

Josh

Learn the difference in time, I said LAST SUMMER, that would be 2013, a few weeks ago is 2014, you are irrelevant and have no clue on how to comprehend.

 

[700UW]

wings  I agree with you    
 
700  do you think it would work out if the 141 and 142 got together again or would it be different

It would be a good thing if it happened, but the the mechanics would never go for it.
 
Years ago to stop the AMFA problems, the IAM had us vote and the Mechanic and Related voted to split into our own district, which was 141M, it was majority UA mechanics then US Airways Mechanics and I think we had Comair and Air Wisconsin mechanics too, but UA was the big boy on the block.
 
I personally voted against the split.

 

[Tim Nelson]

The very team you strongly endorsed 6 years ago. Fact is... the more you bash this team the more your credibility, what's left of it, erodes. Maybe you can ride the coat tails of the UA dissention and get yourself, and the two inexperienced candidates you're running with, elected on the US side of the ballot but that will not translate into anything for the good of the membership at US. Many on this forum see your present agenda. Many on this forum know your history. You cannot escape the past sir. What is done in the dark will be brought to the light. By the way... when I'm considering voting for AGC and VP positions I'm looking at experience at grievance representation; not the current status of contract negotiations. You seem to have overlooked this consideration. Let's discuss and compare AGC candidates' experience in representing grievances. I'm sure you would agree this issue is paramount, when considering endorsement of an AGC. I know you want to keep the focus on contract negotiations. I can appreciate that. However, the election is about more than that. What should members expect, regarding grievance representation from the district, who are assigned recently elected popular AGC candidates from other cities who have no experience? This election is not soley about contract negotiations Sir!   

You sir, are incorrect
 
item 1:  Only two candidates from 2008 are running for spots that I, and 80% of the membership supported them in 2008.   At any rate,   just because you vote and support someone in the past doesn't mean they are entitled to your continued support, especially after they betray the membership.  The reality of the situation is that you, sir, ran against 141 rising less than 2 years ago and said they were not the answer.  So, even though you won't vote for me, I hope you vote for many others on my team.
 
Item 2: The majority of US AIRWAYS candidates on 141rising were the same ones who brought back the terrible 2008 US AIRWAYS contract, and endorsed the terrible United contract. And have already signed off on less than $23 wage in the current negotiations.  Also, they signed off against increasing scope.  They did put another Cinderella date in there that rubber stamps non hubs another year.  That's all you wanted, right? So you can retire?
 
Item 3:  Credibility?  Let's see how credible your boys are when they bring this sorry mess back.   Your boys are all talk and haven't done squat in 6 years other than blow up contracts for our craft.

 

[wings396]

Tim, given that you seem to have some insight as to what's going to be offered, please inform us about any retro pay information. I have brought this item up several times in this thread, and never got any positive vibes from CB, PRez, or anyone else that should be somewhat in the know. If you don't want to post specific s, feel free to PM me something.

 

[ograc]

You sir, are incorrect
 
item 1:  Only two candidates from 2008 are running for spots that I, and 80% of the membership supported them in 2008.   At any rate,   just because you vote and support someone in the past doesn't mean they are entitled to your continued support, especially after they betray the membership.  The reality of the situation is that you, sir, ran against 141 rising less than 2 years ago and said they were not the answer.  So, even though you won't vote for me, I hope you vote for many others on my team.
 
Item 2: The majority of US AIRWAYS candidates on 141rising were the same ones who brought back the terrible 2008 US AIRWAYS contract, and endorsed the terrible United contract. And have already signed off on less than $23 wage in the current negotiations.  Also, they signed off against increasing scope.  They did put another Cinderella date in there that rubber stamps non hubs another year.  That's all you wanted, right? So you can retire?
 
Item 3:  Credibility?  Let's see how credible your boys are when they bring this sorry mess back.   Your boys are all talk and haven't done squat in 6 years other than blow up contracts for our craft.

I don't dispute the past contracts have been sub par. The first 1999 agreement was gutted through two bankruptcies. The membership voting on "Final Offers" with the looming threat of having the existing contract abrogated. IMO... the 1999 agreement was very loosely written when representing grievances. Too much gray language; the company "may" or "when in doubt of a bona fide claim" or "based on operational need." When you're a Grievance Committee person or AGC this is the language you battle with. Representing grievances is the primary responsibility of an AGC. Shouldn't we be focusing on track records and experience representing grievances when considering the candidates for AGC? This is mid May. Elections in my station are a little over three weeks away. You should know... In the political arena a lot can change in that amount of time. Retirement? Nah. If my job gets outsourced I think I'll bring my 34 years to a hub for awhile. Semi retirement.  

 

[BLUTO]

HEY NIELSON WHN
R U COMIN 2 CLT
4 THE LIE CAMPAIN
LIKE U DID LAST
TIME? NOBDY HERE
WIL SHOW-UP 4 U
AGAIN ANYWAY!

 

[737823]

Learn the difference in time, I said LAST SUMMER, that would be 2013, a few weeks ago is 2014, you are irrelevant and have no clue on how to comprehend.

I comprehend just fine you are the one who is changing the story to suit your agenda.

Has Carr told you about Sito's plans for the association and timetable?

Josh

 

[737823]

John Carr has been out of LL1725 for over 10 years come up with something relevant.

As have you yet you still involve yourself and consider yourself relevant today...Carr is in a cushy position within the IAM regardless of territory he is still relevant.

Josh

 

[700UW]

I comprehend just fine you are the one who is changing the story to suit your agenda.

Has Carr told you about Sito's plans for the association and timetable?

Josh

 
How much of an idiot are you?
 
Do you feel important dropping names?
 
Carr has NOTHING to do with US Airways or Air Transport, he is in the Eastern Territory Communications Rep.
 
You are truly just a troll.
 
Sorry Dont talk to Sito so if you want to know his plans call him, lol!

As have you yet you still involve yourself and consider yourself relevant today...Carr is in a cushy position within the IAM regardless of territory he is still relevant.

Josh

I am not involved, I have a vested interest as my son's mother works out there.
 
And its none of your business, what Carr or any other IAM rep or officer does as you arent an IAM member not a US Airways employee.
 
Ok Posters, ask yourself why Josh an alleged financial services employee for JP Morgan has such an interest in US fleet and the IAM.
 
It would appear he isnt what he claims.
 
I challenge you US IAM Fleet to call him out!

 

[737823]

Is Jeff Rusk involved?

Josh