Praetorian
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
- Posts
- 577
Gawd, you demonstrate such ignorance, Sojourn is not a Flops company and Flops didn't create it. Get that simple idea braniac? Now lets publish that list of freeloaders and so called unified MIGS doing overtime,runnin broke airplanes and the ones who broke them.
I'd get an umbrella for your parade that gets pissed on.
You can't make an argument so you take a poke at my inteligance? What does my intelligence have to do with what's contained in our scope article?
What's important, as far as scope is concerned, is who owns a controlling interest in Sojourn. Check the definitions section of our scope clause and you will find definitions for "affiliate", "parent", "control" and "entity". When the contract talks about "the company" what it's really talking about is the "entity" that has a controlling interest in flight options. The prohibition against parallel operations extends to that person.
You know, it takes money to hire attorneys to craft the language that provides for the protections we have in our contract. You can say all you want about which pilot is doing what out on the line. But no one (union or management) respects empty words. Guys like you, who are getting it all for free, send a very powerful and harmful message to management. They know every time they look at you that you are someone the rest of us can't count on when the heat is on. They know you will likely cross the line.
The only thing that remains in question is how long our pilot group will put up with this.