Notices
Mesa Airlines Regional Airline

Mesa

Old 11-08-2014, 09:10 PM
  #3881  
Holds Weds & Thurs Off
 
PermaFo's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: 88B
Posts: 177
Default

It should be insulting enough to your intelligence to know that people knowingly watch that crap and try make real life comparisons to theirs.
Because smart people can't watch a fun show? Or be able to relate? Guess I can't hang out here anymore...
PermaFo is offline  
Old 11-09-2014, 04:53 AM
  #3882  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2014
Position: Airbus FO
Posts: 278
Default

Originally Posted by flapshalfspeed View Post
On an unrelated note, I hope existing CRJ CAs remember that the 36-month equipment lock applies, per contract, even if you downgrade to FO in an attempt to go EJet CA.

I know a few newly-upgraded IAD CAs who seem to think they can just downgrade to IAD FO when CLT closes (to stay in base), then turn around and bid EJet CA immediately--that "back door" won't work, b/c the 36-month CA equipment lock applies even if you downgrade. Buyer beware.
I disagree with this, but not saying you are wrong. It is a unique situation however. I have not know anyone in this particular situation before. Normally when we displace it was going to be a long time before you upgraded again anyway. However, how I feel is if you get downgraded with a displacement, you can rebid any captain position whenever and whatever your seniority can hold. There is nothing in the contract specific to this situation however. What you are suggesting is that the company is forcing the FO to remain CRJ FO until he has the seniority to hold CRJ Captain again (under the previous equipment lock applied to his upgrade) which could be years if we have no growth on the CRJ or wait out his previous 3 year lock which was not his fault a displacement happened to screw him over. This does not sound like something that they would do. Once an FO, I don't see how they could stop you from bidding E-Jet. Your not a CRJ captain anymore so how is the CRJ Captain seat lock valid after displaced back to FO? It was not his/her fault that a displacement happened. Enforcing a Captain training lock on a displaced/downgraded FO does not make sense. Heck the FO could argue that they should get pay protected then since junior FO's would be getting upgrades to higher paying equipment. This would definitely be a grievance. This is why we need more language in our contract. I went from the Dash 8 Captain (no equipment lock) to a displacement into the ERJ Captain seat and could have bid CRJ CA the moment I passed upgrade, because I had no equipment locks created since it was all under a displacement. Displacements are beyond your control. Thats why I don't agree with you on this. I am not saying you are wrong however. It is a unique situation that was beyond the control of the person under displacement and this situation has not happened like this before at Mesa. So you can't say for sure they would be stuck as an FO because of the previous seat lock and not able to bid the E-jet...

Last edited by wt932051; 11-09-2014 at 05:24 AM.
wt932051 is offline  
Old 11-09-2014, 05:06 AM
  #3883  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FerrisBluer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Bob's Big Boy Front Office Staffer
Posts: 263
Default

Originally Posted by wt932051 View Post
I disagree with this, but not saying you are wrong. It is a unique situation however. I have not know anyone in this particular situation before. Normally when we displace it was going to be a long time before you upgraded again anyway. However, how I feel is if you get downgraded with a displacement, you can rebid any captain position whenever and whatever your seniority can hold. There is nothing in the contract specific to this situation however. What you are suggesting is that the company is forcing the FO to remain CRJ FO until he has the seniority to hold CRJ Captain again (under the previous equipment displacement applied to his upgrade) which could be years if we have no growth on the CRJ or wait out his previous 3 year lock which was not his fault a displacement happened to screw him over. This does not sound like something that they would do. Once an FO, I don't see how they could stop you from bidding E-Jet. Your not a captain so how is the Captain seat lock valid? It was not his/her fault that a displacement happened. This would definitely be a grievance. This is why we need more language in our contract. I went from the Dash 8 Captain to a displacement into the ERJ Captain and could have bid CRJ CA the moment I passed upgrade, because I had no equipment locks since it was all under a displacement. Thats why I don't agree with you on this. I am not saying you are wrong however. It is a unique situation that was beyond the control of the person under displacement and this situation has not happened like this before at Mesa. So you can't say for sure they would be stuck as an FO because of the previous seat lock and not able to bid the E-jet...
I can say it. "You'll be stuck as an FO forever." I think it's a bad idea when all you gotta do is apply that same effort and apply to a major.
FerrisBluer is offline  
Old 11-09-2014, 05:27 AM
  #3884  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,665
Default

The company may waive equipment locks at its discretion, however the contract states in 2 places that displaced pilots are subject to any remaining equipment locks they had not completed prior to being displaced.
Xdashdriver is offline  
Old 11-09-2014, 11:30 AM
  #3885  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2014
Position: Airbus FO
Posts: 278
Default

Yeah I just looked and found the two sections. Looks like they would be stuck as an FO. I hadn't thought about this situation in this way before. Man Mesa really knows how to screw guys over. I hope they didn't bid to downgrade then if they had an equipment lock. I don't get why they would want to bid to downgrade anyway because if they just upgraded, why didn't they just bid to upgrade in the E-jet instead? Maybe they realized the mistake they made upgrading in the CRJ and being stuck at the bottom for a very long time and are jealous of the E-jet guys junior getting lines now.
wt932051 is offline  
Old 11-09-2014, 01:23 PM
  #3886  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 977
Default

Originally Posted by wt932051 View Post
Yeah I just looked and found the two sections. Looks like they would be stuck as an FO. I hadn't thought about this situation in this way before. Man Mesa really knows how to screw guys over. I hope they didn't bid to downgrade then if they had an equipment lock. I don't get why they would want to bid to downgrade anyway because if they just upgraded, why didn't they just bid to upgrade in the E-jet instead? Maybe they realized the mistake they made upgrading in the CRJ and being stuck at the bottom for a very long time and are jealous of the E-jet guys junior getting lines now.
Well, when I say "recently upgraded" I mean in the last 3 years. Like, people who upgraded before the EJets were announced. If I was one of those folks I'd be ****ed.

This is the problem with the RLA, grievance, and negotiating process we're stuck with as pilots--there is a glaring difference in opinion between the union and company on:

1) How the CLT closure is being done ("it's kind of closing Dec. 1st but not really"????? What?????)

2) This unintelligible paradox: the base variant for all CRJ pilots is a 50-seater (for pay purposes), but the EJet--an all 76-seat fleet--is somehow not considered a "pay raise" for equipment bidding purposes?

...yet, it'll take months, years, decades before any new contractual language or arbitration results in any resolution of the above issues.

A "better" RLA would enforce short, firm timelines for the resolution of disputes designated as "high priority" by companies and/or unions. If >6 months goes by after a high priority grievance (such as the CRJ CA->EJet CA issue), it automatically goes to an arbitrator for a decision. If >6 months goes by after a CBA expires, any open sections automatically go to an arbitrator for a decision.

There needs to be a fire under both companies and unions to resolve material disputes and issues with economic consequences for employees and/or corporations. Otherwise, no company has any incentive but to twist language beyond the limits of insanity and deal with the minor economic consequences years later. And no union has any other incentive but to defend even the most obviously-belligerent, incompetent pilot from discipline/termination, because our current grievance process is like a messed up long-term horse trading game where the only people who lose in the long-run are the average line pilots who just wanted to show up, fly, go home, and mind their own business.
flapshalfspeed is offline  
Old 11-09-2014, 02:03 PM
  #3887  
Gets Weekends Off
 
meah's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: rj left
Posts: 118
Default

Originally Posted by flapshalfspeed View Post
Well, when I say "recently upgraded" I mean in the last 3 years. Like, people who upgraded before the EJets were announced. If I was one of those folks I'd be ****ed.

This is the problem with the RLA, grievance, and negotiating process we're stuck with as pilots--there is a glaring difference in opinion between the union and company on:

1) How the CLT closure is being done ("it's kind of closing Dec. 1st but not really"????? What?????)

2) This unintelligible paradox: the base variant for all CRJ pilots is a 50-seater (for pay purposes), but the EJet--an all 76-seat fleet--is somehow not considered a "pay raise" for equipment bidding purposes?

...yet, it'll take months, years, decades before any new contractual language or arbitration results in any resolution of the above issues.

A "better" RLA would enforce short, firm timelines for the resolution of disputes designated as "high priority" by companies and/or unions. If >6 months goes by after a high priority grievance (such as the CRJ CA->EJet CA issue), it automatically goes to an arbitrator for a decision. If >6 months goes by after a CBA expires, any open sections automatically go to an arbitrator for a decision.

There needs to be a fire under both companies and unions to resolve material disputes and issues with economic consequences for employees and/or corporations. Otherwise, no company has any incentive but to twist language beyond the limits of insanity and deal with the minor economic consequences years later. And no union has any other incentive but to defend even the most obviously-belligerent, incompetent pilot from discipline/termination, because our current grievance process is like a messed up long-term horse trading game where the only people who lose in the long-run are the average line pilots who just wanted to show up, fly, go home, and mind their own business.
Yea ok that's going to happen
meah is offline  
Old 11-10-2014, 04:07 PM
  #3888  
Living the Dream
 
deltajuliet's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,795
Default

Glad to see the Standing Bid department is hard at work on 2015 Vacations. A true feat in prioritization.
deltajuliet is offline  
Old 11-11-2014, 08:40 AM
  #3889  
Gets Weekends Off
 
prior121's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Position: 175 Left
Posts: 1,539
Default

Originally Posted by deltajuliet View Post
Glad to see the Standing Bid department is hard at work on 2015 Vacations. A true feat in prioritization.
For the record every single person's displacement award has to be done manually. Whereas vacation awards are done automatically. Or so I'm told.
prior121 is offline  
Old 11-11-2014, 08:48 AM
  #3890  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Posts: 86
Default

Does anybody know when Mesa's next open house is?
gr8pe ape is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
nwa757
Regional
31
07-31-2018 04:58 PM
AirbornPegasus
Regional
14
04-08-2009 07:17 PM
Spanky189
Regional
10
05-16-2008 09:38 AM
familyguy
Regional
49
04-11-2008 12:03 AM
LOW FUEL
Regional
104
08-17-2007 04:41 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices