US Airways Pilots Labor Thread 4/15-4/22

[UtterlyUdder]

Utterly,

See if this sounds familiar...

"I was one of the people in the back of those gorgeous red Stinsons who threw the mail out and then caught the new bag of mail."

"I forgive you for mistaking me for a "sir" but I'm not a "madam" either. I'm just plain Ms."

Seems like your memory is fading...or failing....

Jim

Drives you nuts, doesn't it? You have no idea who I am. Or what gender or what I did during my time served. Keeps you off balance, eh?

 

[cleardirect]

Can I make a suggestion. Call your rep. Ask them for an estimate on the legal expenses then get back to us. I can tell you what their answer will be. They do not know. Not that they will not tell you. They do not know. Ask your rep if he has read all of the filings. The same rep that has the financial responsibility for your union. How your dues money is spent. Ask your rep who is deciding legal strategy. The lawyer or the reps? Was Seham handed a blank check book and let loose or is there a committee within usapa that is making decisions?

Mega snoop,

I asked this question almost two weeks ago. Did anyone bother to call their rep and ask the question?

Do any members know the structure of the committee, with names, deciding legal strategy and spending a large majority of dues money? If so please describe it to the rest of us uninformed.

Have an estimate yet of what it has cost so far?

 

[BoeingBoy]

I could have sworn APLA National recently change there language in the merger policy
UAL comes to mind

Someone posted the UAL MEC or LEC resolution that would potentially go to the ALPA BOD concerning merger policy changes, but I've seen nothing here or in the media that would indicate that the BOD has actually changed anything. I feel pretty certain that any change toward DOH by the BOD would have been posted here quickly.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Expressing an opinion now "takes real arrogance"?

Don't put words in my mouth. Assuming one's opion is the only one that matters (ultimate truth, if you will) and all others and those that express them are due nothing but ridicule takes real arrogance. Sorta like you - offering up your "facts" with never a shread of proof and often accompanied with a slam or two at those you don't agree with.

Jim

 

[EastUS]

Among adults, granted, and there can even be agreement to disagree. On the other hand, you and some of your buds don't seem to have anything good to say about those who disagree with you. You do find plenty of ridicule, belittlement, insult, etc, to throw their way however.



It a shame that you don't feel that way toward those that disagree with you - another of those patented flexible "principals" (sic) perhaps.



Since it obviously eluded you, I didn't say you were "capable of advancing the opinion" of anyone. I did say that you do love to tell anyone and everyone whether they're right or merely having "absurd notions" depending on whether they agree with you or not. Apparently "fully expecting disagreement" doesn't mean accepting any disagreement - at least for you.

Jim

Is there some supposedly great and germane "point" hidden in anything in this latest?..or, am I correctly reading this entire post as nothing but completely hypocritical and personal "ridicule, belittlement, insult," etc?

Just FYI: All are perfectly free to disagree as they wish...with ANYONE...even (Gasp!) you

BoeingBoy: "Assuming one's opion is the only one that matters (ultimate truth, if you will) and all others and those that express them are due nothing but ridicule takes real arrogance. Sorta like you..."

 

[ClueByFour]

The second is asparaging the honesty or motivation of a true hero, who was participated in saving the lives of an entire planeload of people.

What he's doing is only slightly less tasteless than pointing out those statistics.

Scully is being used for his propaganda value not because he's any more/less impacted by the outcome

This anger and venom. Totally mean-spirited and just sick.

Your theatrics mimic what your lawyer is going to try. It's nice to see where it comes from.

To what point?

To illustrate the fallacy of putting a man on the stand to suckle his reputation for doing something that has nothing to do with the question of law at hand.

If you can benefit from his reputation as an example of the prowess of the East pilot group, you can surely face the downside, right?

 

[EastUS]

I am still waiting for an answer. What exactly is Skiles going to be testifying about? What exact knowledge does he have as to the formation of usapa, the DOH list, the false C&R, negotiations or the current running of the union?

Other then an emotional appeal and some “starâ€￾ appeal what does Skiles know about the DFR?

What does that have to do with how usapa acted? What does that have to do with a DFR?

Clearly then; you've nothing at all to worry about, so stop sweating so profusely No one can know how any of this will develop at this point. One observation I feel is reasonably fair to make here is that west folks do seem unduly troubled by even the slightest raising of any notions that the jury may actually get to see just what it is they're striving for with the nicster, what type of people would be effected by it, etc...and do seem extremely uncomfortable with ANY notions of "fairness" ever even possibly surfacing at ALL. That's "interesting" and speaks volumes.

 

[BoeingBoy]

To get back to the issue, cómo se dice, net profit per seat mile or RASM divided by CASM?

You really do have the terminology mixed up. RASM can be one of two things, depending on how it's expressed - passenger revenue per available seat mile or PRASM is one and the other is operating revenue per seat mile. PRASM is the more common usage in financial reports and is what US uses.

CASM is operating cost per available seat mile.

Since neither is based on net income or expenses - only operating income or expenses - you can't get net profit (loss) from those figures. If you divide PRASM by CASM, you definitely don't get profit (loss) any more than if you divide operating income by operating expenses. PRASM divided by CASM gives you passenger profit margin based on passenger revenue only. Operating income divided by operating expenses gives you operating profit margin. The two results won't match because there are other operating income items besides passenger revenue (like cargo, other, and fuel hedging gains).

Yield is how much the average passenger paid per mile for their trip and is determined by dividing passenger revenue by revenue passenger miles (no - they don't figure out how much each passenger paid and the length of their trip to get individual yield, then average all those to get mainline or consolidated yield although the end result would be the same).

RASM (normally PRASM, which US reports) is yield adjusted for load factor to produce passenger revenue per available seat mile (as opposed to per revenue passenger mile used for yield). Considering only passenger revenue, PRASM relative to CASM tells you if you made an operating profit by selling tickets to passengers. The only difference between comparing PRASM with CASM or comparing passenger revenue and operating expenses is the units used - the first is per available seat mile and the second is total.

You really should look over a quarterly or annual report once in a while. The airlines usually provide an "Operating Statistics" table that gives all these numbers plus quite a few more. Most of the big airlines are even considerate enough to add footnotes defining each of the specialized terms used.

Jim

 

[ussnark]

Said they experienced a downfall, as in a decline from a former standing.

No, you said, "and that they got here pretty much the same way you did, by the downfall of their old company." You were comparing US to failed carriers, implying US had gone out of business.

 

[ussnark]

Skiles, Jeff Fact Inequities of Nicolau

We were talking about compensation, not what Jeff may or may not talk about.

It is still flame bait.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Keeps you off balance, eh?

Nope, just proves that nothing you say can be taken as the truth - your supposed years with US, your age, your knowledge of ALPA wrongs, nothing. Just as with EastUS and a few others, the childish games take the place of adult discussion. And just like I told him, if that's the game you want to play then I can reciprocate.

Jim

 

[EastUS]

Oh I guess "Seniority Matters" only if you have what 40 years..or is is 30..maybe 20?....

How about "only if you have" some at all? Now then, let's revisit your "Save Dave" scenario, wherein 2 months out west trumps 17 years in the east, or, let's have some more "fun" with your then 11 year old in'86, trumping those with 23 actual years of line flying with the company? Please explain? :blink:

 

[EastUS]

Just as with EastUS and a few others, the childish games take the place of adult discussion. And just like I told him, if that's the game you want to play then I can reciprocate.

It's becoming increasingly evident that you can't actually do much of anything other than offer "the childish games" that "take the place of adult discussion". When asked how you could even possibly attempt to "justify" enhanced west "seniority", in the many instances of people who were literally children out west, when others were starting flying careers in the east?...The best you could apparently do was just roll up into a petulant pout and issue up insults. What admirably "adult" behavior, and very impressive indeed....

 

[BoeingBoy]

Is there some supposedly great and germane "point" hidden in anything in this latest?

Not that you'll ever acknowledge - you're too busy with your childish games and tantrums to recognize a point.

Jim

 

[EastUS]

Not that you'll ever acknowledge - you're too busy with your childish games and tantrums to recognize a point.

Jim

(BoeingBoy @ Apr 19 2009, 04:24 PM) *
......must be important to you....joining the ranks of those who excel at little other than throwing barbs and all...so sad...."

If you feel yourself entirely incapable of backing up your obvious BS = just don't offer it up. If you're able to form any semblance of an actually cogent argument as to why, then children, should become "senior" to those actually flying/working at the referenced time periods?...I'm sure we're all ears here.