|
Originally Posted by Boatbuilder
(Post 3385757)
When all the pilots that are still “on the hook” to the military (reserves, guard, etc) get called up we will be even shorter on pilots. Add to this the difficulty it will place on hiring when stop loss is enacted.
https://i.ibb.co/DbPs8HL/86-EF8993-7...2-E29-FAAD.jpg |
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 3385908)
Here's an interesting fact: Delta is not metering new hires from SKW, RAH and EDV to 5 off the street candidates per month due to staffing issues at those carriers.
If I were still at one of those carriers, I would be bailing to any LCC that called if I could just go get around this. I don’t think it will have the effect they want it to have. |
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 3385908)
Here's an interesting fact: Delta is now metering new hires from SKW, RAH and EDV to 5 off the street candidates per month due to staffing issues at those carriers.
*Corrected |
Originally Posted by Gone Flying
(Post 3385929)
i think it is *now*
If I were still at one of those carriers, I would be bailing to any LCC that called if I could just go get around this. I don’t think it will have the effect they want it to have. Its almost as worthless a strategy as relying on quarter million dollar big box college programs to train the needed pilot supply. |
Originally Posted by Gunfighter
(Post 3385942)
If this is the case we have a severe ego problem with management thinking those pilots will wait for DL instead of leaving for AA, UA, SWA, JetBlue, Frontier, Spirit, Allegiant, etc..
|
Originally Posted by Extenda
(Post 3385832)
Just playing devils advocate, the company is hiring 200 a month and trying to get the staffing level up as fast as they possibly can. Not sure what else they can do besides start cancelling flights due to staffing? If they cooled off on hiring and still ran at redline that would be a different story. Thoughts?
I have no sympathy when they caused the staffing issues and never took an opportunity to change the course when it became apparent we would need more pilots sooner than their pessimistic estimations. We’re the ones paying for it, and when they put out memos selectively using data attempting to show us how it’s not worse at all it is disrespectful and embarrassing. |
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 3385536)
I'm all about partisan free posting. But many people can't help themselves so I have to weigh in.
|
Originally Posted by Iceberg
(Post 3385770)
Right, we all know that an organized (or something that could be argued to be organized) effort by the pilot group to not pick up extra flying would be grounds for the company to sue the union. What’s being asked, is can the company’s escalation of available opentime and the enormous amount of additional green slips awarded be considered the same type of action but with the company (not management, we know none of them are accountable, just the faceless company) at fault?
Is status quo actually status quo or is status quo a one-sided affair favoring the company? You know, cuz no one in management changed anything over the last few years or made decisions that may or may not have resulted in a lack of staffing, reduced schedule quality, excessive training events, or any other such things that are negatively affecting pilot’s lives. However, I believe the case would loose. Reading that case was a great reminder that the RLA is setup to avoid interruptions in commerce at the expense of employee rights. Oh well, back to the drawing board… |
Originally Posted by Vsop
(Post 3386032)
Reading the case law was actually pretty helpful in answering my question. The sited case did reference standard industry practice in scheduling a percentage of open time. That would be the wording ALPA would try to show the company exploiting.
However, I believe the case would loose. Reading that case was a great reminder that the RLA is setup to avoid interruptions in commerce at the expense of employee rights. Oh well, back to the drawing board… |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 3386077)
With the company hiring 200 pilots a month you would never make a case they were trying to pressure us into a contract via reduced staffing.
Btw, have we finally hit 200 a month yet? Weve been saying 200 a month for 4months |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:09 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands