July - US Pilots Labor Discussion

[700UW]

Why? I don't doubt the filing of, as you said: "hundreds of grievance were filed"....just the actual basis for such. Seriously; how do you account for "hundreds" of grievance filings during such a short time? Were there supposed observers within the interiors of "hundreds" of aircraft during that period? Did the presumed observers view the ID's/EMP numbers of "hundreds" of pilots in the process as well? What you're saying simply makes no sense to me...and, where any aspects of logic are concerned; I've zero concern for "How many times" you feel the need to repeat yourself. You could avoid that hardship by simply putting out material that actually makes any sense in the first place.

30 Day cooling off period, thousands of flight occurred during that time, and this was occurring system wide.

How many times do I have to tell you to contact VP of Labor Relations, Al Hemenway, he was director of labor relations ground and had to deal with the grievances.

I gave you the name to contact, go do it, if you dont believe me.

 

[EastUS1]

30 Day cooling off period, thousands of flight occurred during that time, and this was occurring system wide.

What a complete surprise!...You didn't even begin to address, (much less answer), diddly-squat as to how you supposedly had observations for, much less employee ID numbers/etc to support "hundreds" of filed complaints.....Still waiting here.....?

"I gave you the name to contact.." Well...Guess what? = YOU are the one running your mouth here. Whether you like it or not; that makes YOU "the name to contact". Put up or shut up! Hint: "...thousands of flight occurred during that time.." means just that and nothing more, "and this was occurring system wide"...? What's your actual support for that claim? Let me guess here = Call someone other than yourself....because all you've personally got to offer is a half thimble full of BS?

Per your: "How many times do I have to tell you.."? How about just once, if you can at all, in any logical way, actually support your tiresome BS...which clearly appears not to be the case here.

"...if you dont believe me" I don't. Why should I? How can anyone assign any blame for doing otherwise? You claim "hundreds" of issues..."systemwide", yet can't even begin to explain how supposed "hundreds" of employee numbers were gathered, nor how any, even supposedly, observed "hundreds" of aircraft interiors that were supposedly being cleaned by pilots? Would you take any such BS "on faith" from a complete stranger yourself?...Especially when such flies in the face of your own experiences?

 

[700UW]

Are you that dense?

In order to file the grievance the employee had to get the pilot's name and ID # and we even had to go to labor relations and get a letter to prove to the employee while on company property they were obliged to give that information. And if someone refused a maintenance supervisor was called out to the plane and got the information for us. So since you dont know our CBA, dont know our procedures, try and make up some more bs, but it wont work. A shop steward and a maintenance supervisor would go up on the flight if any problems occurred, see we all carried this thing called a radio so when needed to be contacted the utility would call the CLT MTC Tower Supervisor and he would notify the shop steward and one of the line maintenance supervisors where they were needed. Real simple procedure.

No grievance would have ever gotten paid unless the employee name and # were on it who committed the CBA violation.

Keep trying to make up stuff, and like I said, contact Al Hemenway if you dont believe me. Can I make it any clearer?

 

[EastUS1]

....the employee had to get the pilot's name and ID # .....

OK. How was this done and by whom? Who was/were "the employee"(s) in this case? What were their duties that they had access to aircraft interiors so as to observe? Are you saying that, while on strike, your merry band personally observed "hundreds" of aircraft interiors? Some/ANY specifics would perhaps help your case here I'm hardly holding my breath......since "Are you that dense?" is clearly your best "evidence" to offer up....How pathetic.

"Keep trying to make up stuff" indeed.

"No grievance would have ever gotten paid unless the employee name and # were on it who committed the CBA violation." So..how many did get paid? If any, then based on what evidence? Hey, if I'm wrong here, I'm wrong here...but you've certainly not shown me anything but "attitude" in attempting to make your case. I saw nothing of what you've described, and am highly skeptical of your claims here....Period.

 

[700UW]

Do you have a comprehension problem?

This occurred during the 30 day cooling off period.

Read the above post, it shows you how it all occurred.

And we knew what was going on when we were on strike, you do realize CSA and FSA were our friends, and some of us had spouses or significant others who were agents and had to go to work because they were non-union.

Keep trying, but your wasting your time, I have all ready shown you how things occurred, and even told you several times, shoot Hemenway and e-mail, he will confirm what happened.

Lets see the line had utility, we all had SIDA badges and one of the job responsibility was to clean through flights, gee is that hard to figure out? lol!

 

[signals]

Ignoring me won't make me go away. Check.

 

[EastUS1]

Keep trying, but your wasting your time,.....

I couldn't agree more completely

"And we knew what was going on when we were on strike," Well then..everything's finally settled here. There's just no possible way to ever argue against such "evidence".

"....some of us had spouses or significant others who were agents and had to go to work because they were non-union."

So...the agents had nothing better to do than hang around cabin interiors to see if pilots were cleaning them?...OK, sure thing. Hmmm..." had to go to work because they were non-union." ? Umm...interesting; wouldn't that qualify them, via the crossing of your line that is, as all being "scabs" then?..."spouses" or "significant others" notwithstanding?......?......?

Needless to say...a given collection of "spouses" or "significant others, with your group's obvious interests at heart, would make the very finest of credible witnesses.....?

 

[700UW]

You are truly grasping, the company made fleet and csa assist in cleaning, you are truly thick headed and no wonder why its seven years after the merger and your still on chapter 11 wages with no pension while the IAM M&R are in negotiations for their second post bankruptcy contract, and with a defined benefit plan for a pension.

 

[EastUS1]

.... your still on chapter 11 wages with no pension while the IAM M&R are in negotiations for their second post bankruptcy contract, and with a defined benefit plan for a pension.

I'm glad for the IAM and wish them the very best. You're concern is both touching and apparent, but not to worry, as there's no chance in hell I'd trade places in life with yourself

No thoughts on this portion I take it? = " had to go to work because they were non-union." ? Umm...interesting; wouldn't that qualify them, via the crossing of your line that is, as all being "scabs" then?..."spouses" or "significant others" notwithstanding?......?......?"

I won't even further wonder about: "So..how many did get paid? If any, then based on what evidence?" in response to your: 700UW:"No grievance would have ever gotten paid unless the employee name and # were on it who committed the CBA violation."

 

[signals]

Yawn!

 

[700UW]

Nope they were non-union and had to go to work or be fired, unlike the pilots who made a sweetheart deal to scab, even the AFA had to be ordered back to work by a Federal Judge.

Dont let the facts get in your way!

 

[EastUS1]

Nope they were non-union and had to go to work or be fired, unlike the pilots.....

"....had to go to work or be fired, unlike the pilots....." Really?...What protection do you imagine would have been given to any pilots who's supposed "union" of the era, instructed them to go to work?

"Nope they were non-union and had to go to work..." ? So then..the "spouses" and "significant others" weren't "scabs" for crossing your line at all.....but the pilots all were...? I see it all much more clearly now. So: If you're NOT in a union = It's fine to cross picket lines without any reproach whatsoever, but if you're in a "union", that tells it's members to go to work, then you're a "scab"?...OK. Thanks for explaining it so sensibly. It seems that "...had to go to work..." serves to exempt one from "scab" status?...Or does it not? At least one of us is gettin' a bit confused around here....

 

[signals]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I'm sorry is IAM a do no wrong topic?

 

[signals]

Or is IAM pilot union different from IAM a POn union in different hemispheres?

 

[A320 Driver]

You still dont get it.

And you wonder why we had buttons made that said "thanks for nothing ALPA", and you all ran to Seth and complained about them and cried.

We complained more about licensed mechanics being required to do pushbacks. Talk about padding the workforce.

Driver...