Sign In
Create Account
jimntx
Find content
Male
In Topic: Station Visit for Grievance Committee election process Phoenix with District...
20 May 2012 - 09:01 AM
SparrowHawk, on 19 May 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:
I'm sorry but I find this laughable. I've been on here 10 years and in that time I've no recollection of any dues grubbing IAM Elite coming to a US hub just to "Listen" more like shore up support in case of a merger and the TWU winning the election and cutting off the dues revenue stream to the senior management of the IAM.
IAM= I'm About Money
IAM= I'm About Money
If it's any consolation to the LCC guys and gals, the same attitude evidently prevails at AA regarding the TWU. The union honchos are interested only in their perks and salaries. According to the TWU members, the union slogan is "We'll get 'em next time, boys." This is said immediately following the distribution of another concessionary TA.
In Topic: Top Ten Reasons to Vote NO
14 May 2012 - 10:00 AM
FWAAA, on 14 May 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:
Sometimes, your ignorance (and obvious hatred for me) knows no boundaries. I've read the actual proposal from AA to the APA. Your interpretation is flawed and mine is accurate.
As I posted earlier, the current agreement allows Eagle (or other commuters) to fly 50 seaters up to 110% of the mainline fleet count. AA is not proposing that the 71-80 seaters comprise part of the mainline fleet. AA is proposing that the total of the 71-80 seaters equal up to 55% of the number of mainline planes. Your earlier post was incorrect as is this one.
On top of that, you're misquoting the APA website when you said "And, there is also a statement that reads "no additional aircraft will be added to the mainline"." Actually, APA said that there's no language in the proposal that requires that the mainline fleet grow. Think about it for a minute - the more mainline planes, the more RJs are allowed, since the RJ limit will be 55% of whatever the mainline count is.
Read the actual proposal and get back to us. Your bolded sentence above makes no sense. The mainline fleet will contain no 71-80 seat RJs. There's a mainline fleet and an RJ fleet. The larger the mainline fleet, the more RJs AA could fly under the proposal.
APA leadership is angry about the 55%, of course.
As I posted earlier, the current agreement allows Eagle (or other commuters) to fly 50 seaters up to 110% of the mainline fleet count. AA is not proposing that the 71-80 seaters comprise part of the mainline fleet. AA is proposing that the total of the 71-80 seaters equal up to 55% of the number of mainline planes. Your earlier post was incorrect as is this one.
On top of that, you're misquoting the APA website when you said "And, there is also a statement that reads "no additional aircraft will be added to the mainline"." Actually, APA said that there's no language in the proposal that requires that the mainline fleet grow. Think about it for a minute - the more mainline planes, the more RJs are allowed, since the RJ limit will be 55% of whatever the mainline count is.
Read the actual proposal and get back to us. Your bolded sentence above makes no sense. The mainline fleet will contain no 71-80 seat RJs. There's a mainline fleet and an RJ fleet. The larger the mainline fleet, the more RJs AA could fly under the proposal.
APA leadership is angry about the 55%, of course.
You are wrong about me hating you. It's much worse. I am indifferent to you as I am to all company stooges. (Perhaps you should be looking at your disdain for anyone who is not you.) However, may I suggest that you go read the APA's website post entitled, Negotiations update, May 11, 2012. I did not interpret anything. I only cut and pasted what the APA posted on their website. If there is any interpretation, it is by the APA.
Let me cut and paste one more time. From the APA website document cited above, "Their proposal does not have any requirement for management to add additional aircraft at the mainline." That statement does not preclude the replacement of current mainline aircraft with rjs.
