Mesa
#3881
It should be insulting enough to your intelligence to know that people knowingly watch that crap and try make real life comparisons to theirs.
#3882
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2014
Position: Airbus FO
Posts: 278
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 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.
Last edited by wt932051; 11-09-2014 at 05:24 AM.
#3883
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...
#3884
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,665
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.
#3885
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2014
Position: Airbus FO
Posts: 278
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.
#3886
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 977
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.
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.
#3887
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.
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.
#3888
Glad to see the Standing Bid department is hard at work on 2015 Vacations. A true feat in prioritization.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post