Pilot job action?!

Perhaps we can all back up for a moment and narrow down the problem.
This thing has now blown up big enough with so many different rabbit holes that any poster no matter what his/her views can dive into endlessly to justify their point.

The reason we are in this position is that Horton couldn't help himself and went for a dramatic overreach with the pilot group that even might have passed if it weren't for the 10 year lock in on concessions.

Now we have the rumbliings of "we so incompetent in managing the morale of our key employees that we are thinking about getting a court order to do it". Okay, that should work out well.

Any one have a good online deal for the Mandarin course on Rosetta Stone?
 
The sad part is, there never even should have been a "game". Someone was tasked with coming up with a reasonable deal that would have passed membership muster. That person failed. Instead, that person made a (typical) AArogant decision to over-reach, and just shred the entire contract. Now we are seeing the consequences.

What's ironic, Fluf, is that just about everyone I know outside of AA believes it was APA who over-reached by thinking they'd get a better deal than the failed TA. And that includes folks from the ALPA negotiating committees at UA and DL.
 
Wonder how well the FAA would interpret the letter?

Don't write up broken airplanes......

The floggings will continue until morale improves.

Meanwhile the can is kicked farther down the road........

My guess would be a procedure similar to the "frequent flier" absentee "rule" requiring a note from your mother, the Dr., a second opinion, or a mountain of paper to justify a pirep.

Agreed - there are many rabbit holes to fall into. This gets better every day.
 
What's ironic, Fluf, is that just about everyone I know outside of AA believes it was APA who over-reached by thinking they'd get a better deal than the failed TA. And that includes folks from the ALPA negotiating committees at UA and DL.

That's entirely subjective, E - far too dependent on who one's pals are.

Neither side has exclusive claim to idiocy. Both sides have their heads up their butts. The latest faux pas is the company asking to "negotiate" and adding a threat after thepilots accepted the offer - not a way to make friends and influence people.

At some point, one side or the other will have to call a halt to the shenanigans and both lay down their knives and pitchforks and without judicial involvement if this is going to work at all.

Who's going to be the first to grow up? Will the enemy accept a truce? Which side is which?
 
That's entirely subjective, E - far too dependent on who one's pals are.

Neither side has exclusive claim to idiocy. Both sides have their heads up their butts. The latest faux pas is the company asking to "negotiate" and adding a threat after thepilots accepted the offer - not a way to make friends and influence people.

At some point, one side or the other will have to call a halt to the shenanigans and both lay down their knives and pitchforks and without judicial involvement if this is going to work at all.

Who's going to be the first to grow up? Will the enemy accept a truce? Which side is which?

No truer words have been spoken.

Cheers,
777 / 767 / 757
 
An overreach to an overreach. Now that's logic,

I vouch for you E if anyone ever questions that you never worked for AMR. ;)
 
What's ironic, Fluf, is that just about everyone I know outside of AA believes it was APA who over-reached by thinking they'd get a better deal than the failed TA. And that includes folks from the ALPA negotiating committees at UA and DL.
That simply shows us the ilk of people you hang with.
 
Bob, E is actually correct. The message has gotten murkier, even amongst the pilots, that one main focus of the failed LBFO was the length of terms and the opprotunity to get a better deal in a couple of years long before the LBFO would have expired.

Getting a better deal in CHP11 in the short term was always going to be a tough road. AA has shot itself in the foot by using the most draconian terms of the 1113. With any group, there is a middle group of undecideds that AA could have took advantage of with using most of the LBFO and gettting AA out of CHP 11, earning money and playing their "new contract in years" game. They forced every fence sitter into a fight against them. I see less support for Managements moves within the pilot ranks than Netanyanhu would get for a X-rated "Muhammad in cartoons" film festival in Cairo.
 
Long laundry list on 9/12
Bunch other stuff on 10/1
Rest on 11/1 only because they can't reprogram sabre fast enough.

3 day trip might be worth 6 hours (vs 15) and they can't figure out why there has been a negative reaction.
 
Long laundry list on 9/12
Bunch other stuff on 10/1
Rest on 11/1 only because they can't reprogram sabre fast enough.

3 day trip might be worth 6 hours (vs 15) and they can't figure out why there has been a negative reaction.

Did they lay off thousands and start firing people left and right because now you have no contract? Thats what we were told would happen.

On another note; You would think that if AA was prepared to dump 4500 mechanics back in June, like they said they would if we rejected the LBFO (#1), that all the stuff that they eventually reduced the outsourcing to would have gone out by Sept 13. I mean if they had places to send the work of 4500 mechanics three months ago wouldnt the vendor be adamant that since he ramped up for that work that AA send whats left of it right away instead of waiting another three months?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top