|
|
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1266563)
The point is they will argue for category relative and sue for DFR if they don't get it. Every new hire class they run can move most HI pilots up about a thousand or so numbers (depending on class size of course) if relative seniority ends up having anything to do with it. Also, every time they run a new hire class, the new hires in the class senior to them instantly slot in with 2001-2007 hires. Again, if relative is the model. And rest assured they will fight for it and sue if they don't get it.
|
Sorry, I thought about this and looked in the contract. If we merge with HAL and a 2012 hire is placed in with say a 1998 hire, just an example, their seniority might have them with those hired in 98 but their longevity for pay purposes would be based on 2012, right?
I never thought about this before but as far as I can tell longevity is based on date of employment as a pilot. So 2012? So while we don't currently have any < 12 year pilots on the 330, we could very soon have some. Maybe even < 12 year 7ER As? I understand that despite what APC shows on its page they do have some junior 767 As? |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1266572)
Sorry, I thought about this and looked in the contract. If we merge with HAL and a 2012 hire is placed in with say a 1998 hire, just an example, their seniority might have them with those hired in 98 but their longevity for pay purposes would be based on 2012, right?
I never thought about this before but as far as I can tell longevity is based on date of employment as a pilot. So 2012? Your seniority number is not based on date of hire. |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1266563)
The point is they will argue for category relative and sue for DFR if they don't get it. Every new hire class they run can move most HI pilots up about a thousand or so numbers (depending on class size of course) if relative seniority ends up having anything to do with it. Also, every time they run a new hire class, the new hires in the class senior to them instantly slot in with 2001-2007 hires. Again, if relative is the model. And rest assured they will fight for it and sue if they don't get it.
Carl is laughing. |
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1266546)
Hey. I'm gonna resign my seniority and get on with the NFL. Apparently, they need officials. Might be a short-lived career but they don't have FOQA, or ASAP, apparently. Whose in with me?? ;)
:D |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1266577)
The irony is, there is one ref out there saying... "MAN, I CALLED IT RIGHT!"
:D What amazes me is how completely ignorant NFL headquarters is to the mess they've created. The refs are scabs, that's one thing, the PR debacle is a whole 'notha story. |
I hope you are joking? All they have to is copy Dalpas testimony/playbook from the last time, take it to arbitration and WALA, homerun. Seriously, how do we even attempt to defend it? When I bring HAL, AS, or even JB(and how bad relative seniority is going to bite us in the ass) up to the ATL FO's I fly with that were 2007-2008 hires and how they are going to get reamed this time it's almost comical. Sucks being on the other end.
Originally Posted by boog123
(Post 1266571)
Why in the world wouldn't DALPA agree to relative seniority, given recent history?
|
Originally Posted by NERD
(Post 1266585)
I hope you are joking? All they have to is copy Dalpas testimony/playbook from the last time, take it to arbitration and WALA, homerun. Seriously, how do we even attempt to defend it? When I bring HAL, AS, or even JB(and how bad relative seniority is going to bite us in the ass) up to the ATL FO's I fly with that were 2007-2008 hires and how they are going to get reamed this time it's almost comical. Sucks being on the other end.
|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1266572)
Sorry, I thought about this and looked in the contract. If we merge with HAL and a 2012 hire is placed in with say a 1998 hire, just an example, their seniority might have them with those hired in 98 but their longevity for pay purposes would be based on 2012, right?
|
Originally Posted by Columbia
(Post 1266569)
Was a merger announced?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:42 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands