You said guys are going to get bumped out of their seats. In fact, as I proved in my earlier post, you've said this several times. Can you cite me a source of this info or not?
You are saying it yourself in the next paragraph.
If widebodies move to Phoenix why should I not be able to fly those?
My point exactly.
A PIT based aircraft gets moved to a West domicile. That pilot can't go with it. He gets bumped out of his seat.
Get it yet? Jeez, man... talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth.
People like you say that US Airways should keep this flying since AWA had no widebodies. Then we say US Airways wasn't going to exist without us. Then you say we needed each other 'cause AWA was going to be in trouble.
Whoa there, fella, you're putting words in my mouth.
I never said AWA was going to be in trouble. I simply said AWA didn't have any widebodies and had no realistic expectation to be getting any in the foreseeable future.
If you're going to quote me, do it accurately.
Ok...If we needed each other to survive why should the US Airways guys get exclusive rights to widebody flying. Why should they get all the upgrades? If we needed each other shouldn't there be more sharing?
Absolutely. You guys get fenced into the aircraft you were slated to have delivered and your own attrition.
They get fenced into theirs.
Continuation of pre-existing expectations.
Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?
It's not the math...it's your logic that's the problem. Where did you get your crystal ball? I'd like to get one.
A crystal ball has nothing to do with "logic". How does someone's clairvoyance and their ability to logically think go hand in hand?
Where do you come up with this stuff?
You do realize that they have only 9 A-330s right? This international piece of the pie is almost a non factor.
So what about the fact that all 737 and A-320 pilots, which are the bulk of US Airways, will be getting a substantial raise just by going to the AWA rates? How much better do you think they would have fared on their own?
Actually, I think they would have fared quite well, given that every other major carrier is also gearing up for a large take-back of the concessions they had rammed down their throats.
It's going to be an interesting next couple of years.
BTW, there were 3 guys in my new hire class in their 50's and 5 or 6 more in their 40's.
Good for them. What's the AVERAGE age of an AWA new-hire over the last 5 years?
Previously, in here and in other threads, I've asked you to cite sources of info. I also asked you if you read the award. These were not legitimate questions?
They're perfectly legitimate questions. But that's NOT what you said. You said you had provided PROOF. You haven't on this thread, and I stopped watching the other ones days ago... reference the last post I made on the other threads saying I was done debating and had deleted my thread tracking on it, as it was the same old stuff rehashed over and over again.
I have better things to do with my time.
Without referencing specific sections of the award? No solid facts? Are you freaking kidding me? Here's an example from another thread that proves you wrong:
Again, I'm not tracking the other threads anymore. Sorry I missed your posts, wasn't around to respond.
Incidentally, that portion of the award smacks of a lack of understanding of the industry and the large increases that ALL of the legacy carriers are going to see. Nicolau just doesn't understand that, with no bankruptcy protection, the next negotiating session was always going to be a large push to recoup lost wages, ESPECIALLY with the huge profits UAir has been raking in.
Like I said... something is very flawed in the way Nicolau understands the dynamics of the industry.
I think you need to get new reading glasses. Don't ever tell me that I don't cite my sources.
I'll tell you whatever I witness, and quoting from another poster on here isn't exactly the Gospel.
Don't post something on a thread for me when I say I'm no longer watching it; or maybe you need to get new reading glasses.
So you're saying that all of the times that I quelled your argument by referencing and quoting the actual arbitration explaination...these were just my opinions?
Again, where have you done that, except the one excerpt above that does nothing but show Nicolau's ignorance of aviation contracts?
In any event you haven't provided any facts so I don't see your point.
And I fail to see yours. We're probably going to have to agree to disagree and move on.
How did they know your dad used to work there? Obviously you brought it up. And my guess is you thought it would make you sound more credible or something. BTW, it doesn't.
I guess you need reading glasses again.
I brought it up in my first post to point out that the link through my dad was the ONLY one I had with UAir and, with him retired, it proves I don't have a dog in the fight.
If you had been paying attention, you'd already understand that. I wasn't trying to gain credibility in a post where the only point I was making was of this ruling's moralistic value, or lack thereof.
Personally, I don't care if you find me credible or not; it doesn't change the fact that a large portion of the UAir pilot list who thought they would upgrade before they were forced to retire now won't. I personally find that to be extremely unfair. Again, in case you missed it the first 3 times, I don't blame the West pilots for that at all... It simply sucks for the East.
These last couple of sentences show you to be a hypocrite.
You evidently don't know the meaning of the word.
I spoke out about the ethical implications of the award. People such as yourself claimed that UAir would have died without the merger, therefore you're ENTITLED to that award and see it as being completely fair.
I asked for PROOF of your assertions.
People have been able to provide none.
My point required no "proof", it was a personal ethical standpoint.
Do you get it now, or do I need to continue to spell it out?
I never said that US Airways was grasping...I said they probably were.
Oh, OK. So that makes it alright to use in a debate? Maybe I should use the word "probably" more often so I can waffle around a bit...
Which claims are you talking about? I know that many AWA people, as well as AAA people, are making "claims." I have not been making claims when addressing you. I have refuted your comments by explaining to you the Arbitrator's decision.
Oh please,,, there you go, talking out of both sides of your mouth again.
Reference above paragraph where you "claimed" that UAir was grasping... oh wait... "probably" grasping at holding onto their leases.
Is that not a claim?
What was that about being a hypocrite?
How do you know that? You jump down other people's throats when they say that US Airways was going out of business then you tell me that I had no reasonable career expectation? You're a hypocrite.
That's not what I said.
Use those reading glasses again. I said that West pilots had no reasonable expectations OF OBTAINING WIDEBODIES WITHOUT UAIR.
You're throwing around that 'H' word a lot, considering you closely resemble your accusations.
Wow! These guys wanted to staple me to the bottom and and totally stall out my career. And you think I'm self righteous?
You are the EPITOME of self-righteousness. Calling someone a hypocrite while displaying the very core of that word's definition... yep, that would qualify you.
Again, I'm not saying they were right, never have, which is a FACT you keep on trying to avoid addressing.
I simply said that Nicolau's award isn't fair to both parties.
That's what I said, that's what I'm going to continue to say. I'm going to give you the last word, because I have other things to do. I'm going to read your next post, then I'm going to unsubscribe from the thread without responding, as we're obviously never going to convince each other, so make it a good one.