Spirit EFB Distance Learning LOA
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 758
The language is so open ended, it could be used to do almost anything related to "training". For example, it says and I'll paraphrase instead of typing the entire paragraph - the tablet may be used to admin dist learning in lieu of recurrent, OR ANY OTHER COURSE OF TNG (for example but NOT limited to)……….- In other words, they could find two days a month for every month of the year if they want to. 24 days is possible although not likely.
When looking at language in contracts, don't look at what it says and ignore what it doesn't say. You must look at both. "It says this, but doesn't say that." The omitted specifics are just as able to affect our lives as is the included specifics.
Also, you mention already being at min days. Not all of us work min day off schedules. I, and many others, work max day off lines. I'm looking at losing days off and I don't particularly like it.
It has been suggested that some sort of Guaranteed Day Off language might make this LOA palatable; I don't know about the GDO idea because except for my one GS month and PC/PT months, I already have every day off as a GDO.
#12
Many good points being brought up here as well as the general NKS thread.
I was a NO before, and I remain a NO. Just way too many benefits for the company w/out much of a benefit coming our way. This LOA isn't FFF.
I was a NO before, and I remain a NO. Just way too many benefits for the company w/out much of a benefit coming our way. This LOA isn't FFF.
#13
Banned
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jett i son
ipads are here to replace charts/manuals, not for our convenience or entertainment.
They are a work tool and should be fully insured by the company.
This LOA is a concession.
This is a nice point. The Ipads are no different that our MCDUs, digital ATIS, printer functions, PDC etc. They are going to make the operation more efficient, not a "thank you gift" for the pilots , from management.
Originally Posted by Jett i son
ipads are here to replace charts/manuals, not for our convenience or entertainment.
They are a work tool and should be fully insured by the company.
This LOA is a concession.
This is a nice point. The Ipads are no different that our MCDUs, digital ATIS, printer functions, PDC etc. They are going to make the operation more efficient, not a "thank you gift" for the pilots , from management.
Nothing else...
Now the DL is nothing else than a Txxtd in this Trojan Horse Deal.
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 758
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 123
The poor FO's were agreeing, so that you would Shut The Front Door. Lets be honest
Last edited by Tine; 01-31-2015 at 04:57 PM. Reason: apparently you cannot cuss on APC
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 758
Actually, I wouldn't insult my FOs in the manner you're attempting. In the modern world of airline flying, no FO has to put up with an overbearing Captain. I've never been contacted by Pro Standards, so I'll assume that your characterization comes from political differences rather than cockpit manners.
With that said, maybe you should re read what I wrote, I said that the vast majority of pilots I've come into contact with have volunteered their "NO" sentiment. I didn't say "the FO's I've flown with". To be specific; three of the four company JS'rs I carried - two pilots I ran into at the hotel and two crews I exchanged airplanes with all volunteered their NO.
Even if someone is a solid NO, that isn't necessarily an attempt to shut me up, I'm actually a person who likes the LOA but dislikes the language, or rather who dislikes the "greyness" of the language.
I put my feelings on paper to my reps early on. I went on record then as supporting the effort but requested a different tone to the "protection" language. The DL language and explanations from our union are inadequate in their present form, but I would readily vote for the general provisions provided the wording was more specific in protecting our off days.
Don't worry, if I was trying to damage your union team, I'd have run for office. Chill out.
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 123
Actually, I wouldn't insult my FOs in the manner you're attempting. In the modern world of airline flying, no FO has to put up with an overbearing Captain. I've never been contacted by Pro Standards, so I'll assume that your characterization comes from political differences rather than cockpit manners.
With that said, maybe you should re read what I wrote, I said that the vast majority of pilots I've come into contact with have volunteered their "NO" sentiment. I didn't say "the FO's I've flown with". To be specific; three of the four company JS'rs I carried - two pilots I ran into at the hotel and two crews I exchanged airplanes with all volunteered their NO.
Even if someone is a solid NO, that isn't necessarily an attempt to shut me up, I'm actually a person who likes the LOA but dislikes the language, or rather who dislikes the "greyness" of the language.
I put my feelings on paper to my reps early on. I went on record then as supporting the effort but requested a different tone to the "protection" language. The DL language and explanations from our union are inadequate in their present form, but I would readily vote for the general provisions provided the wording was more specific in protecting our off days.
Don't worry, if I was trying to damage your union team, I'd have run for office. Chill out.
With that said, maybe you should re read what I wrote, I said that the vast majority of pilots I've come into contact with have volunteered their "NO" sentiment. I didn't say "the FO's I've flown with". To be specific; three of the four company JS'rs I carried - two pilots I ran into at the hotel and two crews I exchanged airplanes with all volunteered their NO.
Even if someone is a solid NO, that isn't necessarily an attempt to shut me up, I'm actually a person who likes the LOA but dislikes the language, or rather who dislikes the "greyness" of the language.
I put my feelings on paper to my reps early on. I went on record then as supporting the effort but requested a different tone to the "protection" language. The DL language and explanations from our union are inadequate in their present form, but I would readily vote for the general provisions provided the wording was more specific in protecting our off days.
Don't worry, if I was trying to damage your union team, I'd have run for office. Chill out.
FYI. They all b@&$ch about you and your endless cockpit rants.
"when we merge with Alliegiant, Im gonna bid back to the 80"
"if Ben wanted to really run this place he'd call me"
Really?
My personal favorite? I have to hear about is your JFK conspiracy. I upgraded so as not to have to listen to this crap anymore but, its so bad I get to relive it. Thanks!
Law/Goldstein 2016
STFrontDoor.com
#19
I'm a 'no' too. The idea of the LOA is ok - the execution is not, for many of the reasons listed on this forum.
Forum users are the vocal minority, though.
#20
Hear ye Hear ye! The Olive Garden 7 have spoken.
FYI. They all b@&$ch about you and your endless cockpit rants.
"when we merge with Alliegiant, Im gonna bid back to the 80"
"if Ben wanted to really run this place he'd call me"
Really?
My personal favorite? I have to hear about is your JFK conspiracy. I upgraded so as not to have to listen to this crap anymore but, its so bad I get to relive it. Thanks!
Law/Goldstein 2016
STFrontDoor.com
FYI. They all b@&$ch about you and your endless cockpit rants.
"when we merge with Alliegiant, Im gonna bid back to the 80"
"if Ben wanted to really run this place he'd call me"
Really?
My personal favorite? I have to hear about is your JFK conspiracy. I upgraded so as not to have to listen to this crap anymore but, its so bad I get to relive it. Thanks!
Law/Goldstein 2016
STFrontDoor.com
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Breton
Hangar Talk
1
03-19-2007 02:27 PM