Usairways Sells Erj-70's And Slots To Republic

[Light Years]

Mike,

I don't believe that is the case or even close to an accurate speculation.  You maybe able to hire off the street, but they won't be able to keep f/as on the a/c at those wages.  These types of hirees that accept these types of wages do not stickto any job let alone a f/a job. Plus the training would be no less than 4 weeks.

The Company needs reliability. They need to know that when a f/a is called out they will acutally show up for the flight.  If these off the street hirees decide to quit at any day for even a little wage increase from any company...they'll be history for U.

So, it behooves the company to retain the folks they have on the property. Otherwise the "Division" will fall appart way before end of the year.

[post="279091"][/post]​

You are absolutely correct, PITbull. The division could start falling apart here real soon. Coincidentally, there were no recalls for months as no more aircraft were coming in... now they are suddenly offering second and third chances, getting as many back as possible. Why, when the planes are being sold?

Because... F/As are only obligated to put in 90 days if they choose to go to the 170 division. If they leave before 90 days, they lose mainline recall. Could it be that the company wants to have as many F/As on the property with less than 90 days in the division so they can't quit and return to mainline? They have to know that there is no reason for the 170 F/As to continue once the planes are transferred. Unless the operation goes "as is" with a new owner they will all leave... these folks were hired for mainline, and agreed to the mini-mainline, but not Express. None of them want a job with a commuter and can make more money doing anything else.

 

[USA320Pilot]

MLT:

The information I posted came from an email exchange in another forum. There were other mulitple authors and you're right a pilot posted much of the information on another message baord, but I re-wrote their comments, combined the information from a couple of emails, and added my own thoughts.

Regardless, the information is germane, some comes from an MEC member, and some comes from the Merger Committee.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[700UW]

So you admit to posting e-mails without the author's permission, aren't you the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[USA320Pilot]

700UW:

I have the authors permission to post his email or re-write the information -- so try again. It's all about posting accurate information versus misrepresentation by certain people.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[USA320Pilot]

Mlt:

Mlt said: “Speaking of Boeing Boy...it is implied on the pilots message board that he will not be posting there as he is scheduled for retirement. The Give Away Gang doesn't like to be challenged and they have changed the access to 'only active'. I hope Boeing Boy knows that all of us want him to continue to post on this board.â€￾

USA320Pilot says: You’re comment is not accurate. At the recent MEC meeting the MEC passed a resolution brought to the body by the communications committee chairman to limit access to the ALPA message board. Certain former US Airways pilots, who are politically aligned and share similar views with BoeingBoy, will no longer have access to the message board because of alleged impropriety and passing false information.

When the resolution went into subcommittee the Boston Captain Rep led the charge to limit message board access, which effectively removes certain pilots from spreading misinformation. Again, the communications committee wrote the draft resolution, it was worked on in subcommittee, the Boston Captain Rep led the effort for change, and some member’s of the RC4, who no longer have the “roll callâ€￾ majority, attempted to stop the resolution from passing.

I attended the MEC meeting, witnessed the debate, and the vote on this resolution.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[700UW]

700UW:

I have the authors permission to post his email or re-write the information -- so try again. It's all about posting accurate information versus misrepresentation by certain people.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="279111"][/post]​

Accurate?

Lets see
UCT/ICT, NWA, Painful Clause, Company will win airbus outsourcing.

There is no proof you had anyone'e permission to post those e-mails.

You are the master of misrepresentation.

 

[mwa]

in the end "passed over" is correct. you screwed over the wholly owned companies trying to get a better deal for yourselves. it was an "anybody but them" attitude. it grew to over a dozen entities flying U's business as a result. you waited too late to recapture w/mda and now it has been sold - yes sold. there is no other way to view it.

 

[mlt]

USA320Pilot:
When did having a different political view become a justifiable reason to limit a member's voice? Is this something new in the constitution and by-laws? This MEC's need to quiet dissident voices is frightening.

When would now be a good time to start a recall?

 

[700UW]

Sounds like Chairman Mao and the gang of four.

 

[diogenes]

Mlt:


USA320Pilot says: You’re comment is not accurate. At the recent MEC meeting the MEC passed a resolution brought to the body by the communications committee chairman to limit access to the ALPA message board. Certain former US Airways pilots, who are politically aligned and share similar views with BoeingBoy, will no longer have access to the message board because of alleged impropriety and passing false information.

When the resolution went into subcommittee the Boston Captain Rep led the charge to limit message board access, which effectively removes certain pilots from spreading misinformation. Again, the communications committee wrote the draft resolution, it was worked on in subcommittee, the Boston Captain Rep led the effort for change, and some member’s of the RC4, who no longer have the “roll callâ€￾ majority, attempted to stop the resolution from passing.

I attended the MEC meeting, witnessed the debate, and the vote on this resolution.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="279112"][/post]​

If impropriety and false information were the true reason for the changes, YOU would have been banned long since. You are the ONLY union member I am aware of on this board that has been publicly disavowed by his own union. You may spin that however you wish; it remains a fact.

The REAL reason is to stifle dissent.

Why is Jim's right to his opinion, and the freedom to express it, any less valuable than yours?

Have you noticed the policies of ALPA and CCY are converging? That should deeply concern you.

Personally, I am opposed to censorship. Take you for instance. I would not DREAM of silencing you; by your own words, you condemn yourself far better than anyone else could.

 

[BoeingBoy]

diogenes,

Personally, I find the whole ALPA board thing rather amusing. After the failure of the segregated "active pilots only" board experiment, I guess that the Communications Committee chairman - who is "politically aligned and share similar views with" USA320Pilot - has come up with a way to stifle some dissenting views. I guess that "alledged" is evidence enough in the eyes of those who would rather work in the shadows. Unfortunately, they're stuck with me for another 16+ months.....

Jim

 

[USA320Pilot]

Open and honest debate is encouraged, but the majority of the MEC voted to remove access to the ALPA message board to people who misrepresent information. Politics is fine and constructive debate is positive, misrepresentation by people is wrong.

It's not censorship, it's about integrity and telling the truth.

The majority of the MEC voted by senatorial vote to make the message board access change because of misrepresentation, predominantly by people associated with the former RC4.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[BoeingBoy]

Open and honest debate is encouraged, but the majority of the MEC voted to remove access to the ALPA message board to people who misrepresent information.

[post="279198"][/post]​

As one of the "alleged perpertrators", one would think I would be included in the ban. Maybe you can make another plea to your pals and get the oversight corrected.....

Removing retired pilots or those furloughees who have recall rights even though they have taken jobs with other companys seems at odds with an attempt at preventing "misrepresentation", i.e. any opinion at odds with the views of the elite few. Maybe it's only the first step. After all, we've all seen how your type reacts to "open and honest debate" - impugn, attack, malign, etc......

Jim

 

[Mtnman928]

Open and honest debate is encouraged, but the majority of the MEC voted to remove access to the ALPA message board to people who misrepresent information. Politics is fine and constructive debate is positive, misrepresentation by people is wrong.

It's not censorship, it's about integrity and telling the truth.

The majority of the MEC voted by senatorial vote to make the message board access change because of misrepresentation, predominantly by people associated with the former RC4.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="279198"][/post]​

Honest my eye! It's about silencing people with opposing views and not allowing those views from being posted, analyzed, over analyzed, hashed about, nit picked, picked apart, finding the kernels of truth, throwing out the BS and allowing the reader to discern what is right and what isn’t. Not listening to sanitized pap that someone puts out thinking they know what is best for you.

It’s why they are called the Ya Ya Brotherhood.

Mtnman

 

[USA320Pilot]

Mtnman928:

In open session the MEC debated another resolution similar in scope to one's discussed at previous meetings about limiting access to the ALPA message board because member's who work at competing carrier's or retired pilots were believed to be intentionally posting misinformation.

In fact, a prolific USaviation.com poster (who violated the ALPA EIS Committee Chairman's trust, when he posted information on this message board without the Chairman's permission and ALPA requested USaviation.com remove his post due to impropriety) supports these individuals who the MEC believes lack character.

Meanwhile, the majority of the MEC voted for the resolution brought to the body by the Communications Committee Chairman and moved by the BOS Captain Rep. Thus, if you disagree with this point I suggest you take it up with the majority of the MEC.

Regards,

USA320Pilot