AAI Pilots Expectations for January 2015

[humveedriver]

After a short Google search;
Origin of terminology "dead nuts" accurate or "dead balls" accurate?

what is the origin of this term? I have heard it might originate in analog scales, where the zero was set by turning nuts, so dead nuts level was completely accurate; I have heard that might originate as a measurement term, when there is no movement on a scale or in a leveling bubble, so it was dead zero (a.k.a dead naught) and then misspelled.

I have also hear dead balls as a term meaning the same thing. Also dead balls on accurate or similar.

No sir. "It's an industry term!".

 

[scoreboardII]

Considering this and reading the exec blog I think it's a lock that the arbitrator will rule that it be heard by the DRC. I mean think about it. We're having a third party decide if our committee shared by equal members from both sides should meet and discuss a grievance by one of the sides? Seems like a total waste of money to even have an arbitrator decide that point but then we wouldn't be able to make sure both sides had some trip pull and a nice stay in our nation's capitol.

Try the crab cakes I hear they're to die for this time of year. Oh, and I'm sure the dogwoods and cherry blossoms are in bloom as well. Be sure to take the wife and kids!

You must have read a different blog.... The AT grievance is merely an attempt to take another bite at the apple, and lacks merit to be heard by the DRC.

 

[Phlintstone]

Lacks merit!? You must be so far up the SWAPA Prez's colon you might as well check for polyps while you're there. Several hundred AT CAs bid and were awarded a (717) CA position. They would receive the commensurate CA pay on 1/1/2015. Now, with the company deciding to remove the 717 from the inventory the only option they have is to be an FO on that same date. You expect those guys to just go away quietly!? They have a legitimate grievance that should be heard. There are many other facets to this issue and it is ignorant of you to think that it lacks merit. You obviously are drunk on Kool-Aide...again.

Phred

 

[Citrusflyer]

You must have read a different blog.... The AT grievance is merely an attempt to take another bite at the apple, and lacks merit to be heard by the DRC.

Opinions vary - the good news is yours counts as much as mine - a big zero.

We'll just have to wait and see, May should be interesting ...

 

[Luv2BFlyin]

Opinions vary - the good news is yours counts as much as mine - a big zero.

We'll just have to wait and see, May should be interesting ...

We won't hear anything til June at the earliest. If SWAPA chooses to employ another stall tactic, it may be August or September before we get a ruling on the jurisdiction.

 

[redflyer65]

How can SWAPA (or ALPA for that matter) tell the company how to operate there business with regard to aircraft placement and orders. Take it up with Southwest management.

 

[scoreboardII]

Lacks merit!? You must be so far up the SWAPA Prez's colon you might as well check for polyps while you're there. Several hundred AT CAs bid and were awarded a (717) CA position. They would receive the commensurate CA pay on 1/1/2015. Now, with the company deciding to remove the 717 from the inventory the only option they have is to be an FO on that same date. You expect those guys to just go away quietly!? They have a legitimate grievance that should be heard. There are many other facets to this issue and it is ignorant of you to think that it lacks merit. You obviously are drunk on Kool-Aide...again.

Phred

lets air the grievance here.

First, show the crowd where in the TA does it state that 717s will be on property post 2014?

I can show you in the documents what happens when the 717s go away, which is occurring and is playing out exactly as the documents describe.

Second, show us where in the documents it says if the jets go away, those affected will be compensated?

It does not.

Lastly, the proof is in the pudding, the grievance to date contains no factual claim, just hyperbole that some are harmed, but no mention of how harmed or why. That's the basis for denial, the claim lacks merit, it fails to describe exactly which section of the agreement is being breached. Therefore, the DRC is not an avenue for remedy. Have a problem with the way the company is doing business? Sue them, not SWaPA.

 

[Phlintstone]

Your post shows just how clueless you are about the process let alone the grievance.

The phrase, "Never debate a fool. He will bring you down to his level and then beat you with experience." comes to mind.

Phred

 

[texman]

Question? Does it State in AT's transition agreement with the company(SWA), that no AT pilot can be a SWA 737 captain before 2015? Honest answer please. I don't have the agreement in front of me.

 

[Phlintstone]

Yes it does say that.

Phred