SO - Where's the SLI?
07-01-2016, 06:10 AM
#271
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Originally Posted by Spoiler
To paraphrase the above
We don't like it so we won't take it.
Let's blame ALPA for the legally sanctioned merger process.
I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore.
We don't like it so we won't take it.
Let's blame ALPA for the legally sanctioned merger process.
I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore.
07-07-2016, 04:35 AM
#272
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,764
Originally Posted by Al Czervik
I'm sure the company is behind the delay. All they want is to release the list and implement immediately. That's a possibility in late August with FOS.
07-07-2016, 05:00 AM
#273
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 398
Originally Posted by Arado 234
Gossip on the line is that the company is not happy with the list with regard to the lack of fences (training costs). Does the company have veto power over the arbitrators ' decision?
Training happens when Preferences are filled or Displacements occur.
It doesn't matter who, as in LAA/LUS/east/west gets trained.
It does matter what slot is being filled and where the pilot filling it comes from equipment-wise, not so much where the pilot comes from airline-wise.
07-07-2016, 05:12 AM
#274
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,764
Originally Posted by Frip
That doesn't make sense.
Training happens when Preferences are filled or Displacements occur.
It doesn't matter who, as in LAA/LUS/east/west gets trained.
It does matter what slot is being filled and where the pilot filling it comes from equipment-wise, not so much where the pilot comes from airline-wise.
Training happens when Preferences are filled or Displacements occur.
It doesn't matter who, as in LAA/LUS/east/west gets trained.
It does matter what slot is being filled and where the pilot filling it comes from equipment-wise, not so much where the pilot comes from airline-wise.
07-07-2016, 05:18 AM
#275
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2014
Posts: 1,681
Originally Posted by Arado 234
I agree. But can the company veto the SLI?
I would doubt it.
I'd think that they would have bulletproof language that all parties would have to accept the this and abide by it this time..... I can't imagine any reason that arbitrators would allow them to be exempt-while no other parties would be.
I don't think that rumor seems credible.
07-07-2016, 07:40 AM
#277
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: DFW A320 FO
Posts: 586
Originally Posted by Arado 234
I agree. But can the company veto the SLI?
So IMO, yeah, the company could get the outcome modified to some (significant) degree if they so desire.
07-07-2016, 09:04 AM
#278
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 194
Originally Posted by swaayze
Officially, no. But recent events have proven that those with money and connections can effect any outcome they desire badly enough.
So IMO, yeah, the company could get the outcome modified to some (significant) degree if they so desire.
So IMO, yeah, the company could get the outcome modified to some (significant) degree if they so desire.
07-07-2016, 09:13 AM
#279
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,294
Originally Posted by esadof
Company would be exposing itself to some serious liability if they interfered in any way. B.S. Rumor. This delay is because one of the parties(not the company) is already playing games and the arbs are bending over backwards and allowing it to ensure the process is unassailable.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
