US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
Move2CLT
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,048
- Reaction score
- 8,631
Who you chasing down Sherlock?
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
Repeating the same mistake over and over doesn't change the fact that it's a mistake. "We will be able to achieve a much better contract than this...". "We will break the cycle of failure...". "we will implement the arbitration award to pursue an industry-leading contract." No where in there do they say that they WILL achieve an industry-leading contract. Still wrong and just can't admit it...
Jim
Attachments
Not chasing down anyone MSU, it was just funny. I will say that boeing boy has not changed his POV since.
See right above you? Okay, here you go, I was wrong.
Yeah, I've always said that about you.
The guy I quoted above was referencing Pan Am/National. I couldn't find the whole award, just references to in later legal cases. It seems it had similarities to ours, but was more complicated with the F/Es. Anyone know where to find the whole thing? Here is an interesting paragraph:
"Gill Opinion at 12. The Arbitrator concluded that "there are some 'substantial practical inequities' in unrestricted operation of straight length of service which . . . could not feasibly be cured in workable and readily administrable fashion by special protective provisions." The ratio that the Arbitrator adopted covers a much smaller portion of the list than the National pilots advocated. In rejecting the National pilots' contention that the ratio should extend farther down the list, the Arbitrator explained that the degree of disparity in length of service between Pan Am and National pilots increased farther down the list and thus, extending the ratio as the National pilots sought would, on balance, result in too great a disparity in length of service between Pan Am and National pilots who would be ratioed together at that point in the list. The Arbitrator also noted that even though those National pilots below the ratio portion would not reach their promotion expectancies until long after the Pan Am airmen on the list near them reached theirs, this inequity was offset by the fact that these National pilots were, on average, younger and thus had more time to reach their expectancies."
"Gill Opinion at 12. The Arbitrator concluded that "there are some 'substantial practical inequities' in unrestricted operation of straight length of service which . . . could not feasibly be cured in workable and readily administrable fashion by special protective provisions." The ratio that the Arbitrator adopted covers a much smaller portion of the list than the National pilots advocated. In rejecting the National pilots' contention that the ratio should extend farther down the list, the Arbitrator explained that the degree of disparity in length of service between Pan Am and National pilots increased farther down the list and thus, extending the ratio as the National pilots sought would, on balance, result in too great a disparity in length of service between Pan Am and National pilots who would be ratioed together at that point in the list. The Arbitrator also noted that even though those National pilots below the ratio portion would not reach their promotion expectancies until long after the Pan Am airmen on the list near them reached theirs, this inequity was offset by the fact that these National pilots were, on average, younger and thus had more time to reach their expectancies."
One person I hope. That is who it is aimed at. The posts are to help make a point delivered elsewhere, they have no bearing on the Nic.
Metroyet
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 5,664
Once they finally make the courts understand just how "Unfair" the list is, I'm sure it will be over turned and DOH with a 1.2 billion dollar east only signing bonus will be a virtual certainty.
One should vote McKee if that's how one reads the tea leaves.
Jim is still struggling with how to vote, please don't confuse him.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
Yeah, the one where you said that several of your posts had nothing to do with the Nic. You didn't say that the Nic wouldn't be on trial, did you?
For someone that claims to know that, you spend a lot of time trying to convince the westies how unfair and irrational it is...
On someone's laptop, which hasn't been seen lately...
Jim
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2YIBd0YLV8&feature=youtu.be HILARIOUS!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
