US Pilots Labor Thread 3/11-3/18 OBSERVE THE RULES
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
E
EastUS
Guest
Well..In fairness; I think the "I really don't care if you had 50 years there" is at least some improvement in essential honesty, and far superior to any completely ridiculous claims of the nic being "fair and equitable". At the very least = It's certainly more fully descriptive of the west's "Integrity"-laden "Righteous Position" than most previous postings have been...other than the famous bit from Leonidas of course = "I want the captain seat..and most of all, I want every single east pilot to pay for it"
One can only suppose that such an utterly unbelievable sense of entitlement has to come from somewhere within only the most "justifiable" confines of Fantasyland. What better place to look than under the "We think we saved you all/You owe us everything, so you count for nothing" tiltawhirl ride?
However you slice it; "I really don't care if you had 50 years there" speaks volumes..............
Yeah, we all know, too well, how you reconcile, rewrite, revamp (call it what you want) Alpa's "workable" merger Policy. It worked for you, conveniently, the last time. I've heard/read the rumors about mergers too. I live north of San Francisco and I want no part of a merger/agreement with United. You guys are as screwed up as we are,and, I am a helluva lot more "senior" than you are.
L
luvn737s
Guest
However, if you keep it in context, that the formation of one airline from two-the 50 years really do not matter. The current airline is USAirways in name only. Why choose an integration methodology that preserves one side of the new group at the expense of the other?
What matters is the "purchasing power" of those years of service at your old airline at the time of the merger. For some, 10 years bought a captain seat - for others it bought an F/O seat and for others still, their years of service bought a furlough with uncertain callback date.
Stripping the emotion from it provides clarity at the expense of drama.
What matters is the "purchasing power" of those years of service at your old airline at the time of the merger. For some, 10 years bought a captain seat - for others it bought an F/O seat and for others still, their years of service bought a furlough with uncertain callback date.
Stripping the emotion from it provides clarity at the expense of drama.
toganoflex
Veteran
- Apr 27, 2008
- 557
- 381
toganoflex
Veteran
- Apr 27, 2008
- 557
- 381
Sure does.
It speaks of fairness in integration in a merger instead of giving in to your entitlement crap.
No doubt. I've but two simple questions that should serve to register the appropriate levels on any greed index = How many years do you have at AWA?..and exactly how many years of an east "fellow pilot's" working life do you fantasize that yours are truly and "honorably" "worth"?. Is it merely one of yours for two of theirs?..or is it even more?
You would do well to avoid even the mention of greed..........
Eastus,
Good question that has a simple answere.
Lets say you were hired at Piedmont in 1984 and you are an a320 captain. you are slotted next to a West pilot hired around 1987 who holds a similar position at AWA. So the answere would be 22/25ths.
Now, lets say you were hired at USAir in 1985 and are a junior captain, you are slotted next to your West counterpart who was hired in 1990 or possibly 1996. So the answere woulld be either 19/24ths or 13/24ths.
Now lets say you are a senior F/O hired in 1986, you are slotted next to your West similar who was hired in 1998. So the answere would be 11/23rds. You are probably 1# senior to Cleardirect.
Now let say you were hired in 1987, but quit and got hired at AWA in 2002. You are slotted in at your relative position and are now senior to your former self. This story happened numerous times. The answere is smart move/good decision!
Now lets say you were hired in 1987 and you are furloughed with no recall likely without the merger. you are slotted below the West pilot hired in 2003, who would have been your classmate had you been accepted or tried to interview. The answere is now 4/22nds.
The ironic part is that the pilot with the lowest ratio (4/22nds) actually recieved the biggest gain, i.e. their job back, and are now trying to get a windfall at the expense of the West, by leapfrogging up to 85% of them.
So I will mention "greed" and while the West posses it, I would say it is somewhat venial, when compared to the East combination of "greed", "pride" and "envy".
Phoenix
Veteran
Well, well...
Since the "old timer" has not expressed any anger that his seat has already been taken... it would appear that it has not been.
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
If the Judge is showing ANY sort of bias, he should, and very likely will, be removed. Count on it.
Waketurbulence
Advanced
If you would take the time to educate yourself by reading the transcript, he is not showing bias. He is strictly following the law and NOT putting up with any bs from the usapa lawyers. Legal gameplay is not going to be tollerated in his court, he has made it clear.
Removed? Not a chance but you can keep on wishing.
toganoflex
Veteran
- Apr 27, 2008
- 557
- 381
No need. I found this on another board. Its from the conference.
(7:7-8)
"...indeed, much of the material presented in objection I find to
be either entirely unpersuasive or even completely irrelevant."
(8:6-12)
THE COURT: No, Mr. Granath. You don't need an offer
of proof. You had a brief. You had extensive documentation.
You had ample opportunity. And a great deal of what you
submitted was really not of use to the Court in addressing the
legally relevant questions on class certification. So I don't
see a need for an offer of proof. This matter of class
certification, I find, to have no difficulty at all. And I
will enter an order on that later, hopefully within a few days.
toganoflex
Veteran
- Apr 27, 2008
- 557
- 381
Wow, looks like watching reruns of Law & Order is really paying off for you!!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
