Hate which seniority list will be used for the next transaction?The next contract for this pilot group will be when another transaction takes place.
Hate
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hate which seniority list will be used for the next transaction?The next contract for this pilot group will be when another transaction takes place.
Hate
Hate which seniority list will be used for the next transaction?
Really, there are still two airlines or are we a single carrier? You need to read the legislation.Since there will not be a joint CBA in place, there are still two separate seniority lists which are active. The next transaction will be unique (get that, Chip? The UCT....you were right) in that THREE seniority lists will be merged under a McCaskill-Bond federally mandated arbitration. There will be no recourse on that since it will NOT be an intra-union bargaining position.
Really, there are still two airlines or are we a single carrier? You need to read the legislation.
the process to derive a single usair list was complete with the company acceptance as required by the ta. A single system seniority list exists today and will be implemented when there is a single contract as per the ta, regardless of how it is achieved (bk,merge,vote) Why do you think usapa wants to renegotiate seniority? because management already has a single list.
You're sick.
Get some help, and while your at it address that Nazi admiration issue.
That is because you have no legal argument to back up your position, typical of the clown college.Having a single list, and using it are two different things. Of course, we've been through this argument, what now, 6,453 times and you disagree with me. I disagree with you.
If you knew the answer (that you think is correct, I don't) before you started typing, why did you ask it?
Should we argue this 6,454 times now? Is that all you want to do? If so, you are just SO, SO tiresome and I, for one, find you insipid.
They know there are serious safety issues involved in the integration just as they know they have a culture that ignores other safety issues. If you don't think this is important, good for you. I suspect you are in the minority.
That was the entire intent of the "Safety Survey". Everybody saw it as the farce it was. The company simply laughed at it and dismissed USAPA with a flippant wave of the hand. USAPA is an ever increasing embarrassmentPersonally, I think the handful of hardcore DOH diehards here are in the minority. Look at what PI Brat and Kabota have said. Also, very few if any of the West posters seem to feel as you do. I'm wondering if this "it's unsafe to merge the pilot groups" is just a realization that the DOH battle is lost and a last gasp way to try to keep DOH on the East...
Jim
You know; for a second there, I might have believed that the antagonists were on to something. Now that you stuck your two cents in, I am assured that I am right on track. Thanks for the renewed confidence there Traitor.
I suspect you are in the minority.
V
Personally, I think the handful of hardcore DOH diehards here are in the minority. Look at what PI Brat and Kabota have said. Also, very few if any of the West posters seem to feel as you do. I'm wondering if this "it's unsafe to merge the pilot groups" is just a realization that the DOH battle is lost and a last gasp way to try to keep DOH on the East...
Jim
Since there will not be a joint CBA in place, there are still two separate seniority lists which are active. The next transaction will be unique (get that, Chip? The UCT....you were right) in that THREE seniority lists will be merged under a McCaskill-Bond federally mandated arbitration. There will be no recourse on that since it will NOT be an intra-union bargaining position.
Having a single list, and using it are two different things. Of course, we've been through this argument, what now, 6,453 times and you disagree with me. I disagree with you.
If you knew the answer (that you think is correct, I don't) before you started typing, why did you ask it?
Should we argue this 6,454 times now? Is that all you want to do? If so, you are just SO, SO tiresome and I, for one, find you insipid.
You know; for a second there, I might have believed that the antagonists were on to something. Now that you stuck your two cents in, I am assured that I am right on track. Thanks for the renewed confidence there Traitor.
I do however, find it quite amusing that when the relationship of safety to integration is verbalized, the result is an attack of sanity. To make it clear, putting these two diversely disfunctional groups together is unsafe. It has been referenced time and again. This has not changed and these boards clearly confirm that diagnosis. To try to now trivialize this safety issue is tatamount to the company ignoring the safety culture survey. The result is the same. They know there are serious safety issues involved in the integration just as they know they have a culture that ignores other safety issues. If you don't think this is important, good for you. I suspect you are in the minority.
V
I would expect that those who are just so childish to be terminated without discretion.