Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1374344)

The right seat is pretty easy to figure, what number and where is the most junior pilot on our list right now? Is he/she on the DC9, or MD88? If they are on the 9 right now, and all the 9 pilots are being displaced in this bid, then I would guess the most junior 9 pilot will now be the most junior 717 pilot.

If instead, the most junior pilot on our list is on the MD88, some of the 9 pilots could go there and bump them off, to bottom of the 717. Either way, I think the 'new bottom' will be the 717, as it's the lowest paying we have.

The left seat will be harder to figure, because some pretty senior guys may bid it, just to be in the top 5, or 10, or what have you, and/or LCA wannabees. But the bottom of the left seat should go very junior, for the same reasons as the bottom on the right seat.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1374354)

Here's a reenactment of Flight with sock puppets:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1374356)

I was talking to a 73N B buddy of mine today and guess what he brought up out of the blue? 73N A's he has flown with have said "you know, I'm thinking of bidding the 717A. It'd be nice to get a summer off and then I'd be senior and could make it all back up on GSs and good lines."

That could make for a big uh oh...

http://rob.com/pix/var/albums/weird/...g?m=1289692666

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1374353)

I agree. Constructive engagement is not a bad practice; it just shouldn't be turned into submissive compliance. We are displaying a remarkably passive approach to unilateral changes to our compensation. The manner in which out times is being computed is being changed, and all I've seen so far is discussions about a resolution (did one pass?).

A huge backlog of grievances that will never go anywhere is nothing to brag about, but why don't we have occasional disagreements? If we don't view a change to the status quo on pay calculations as a reason to disagree, then when will we react?

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1374339)

I need a distraction from waiting for the award.

Here, let's try a song:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1374356)

I was talking to a 73N B buddy of mine today and guess what he brought up out of the blue? 73N A's he has flown with have said "you know, I'm thinking of bidding the 717A. It'd be nice to get a summer off and then I'd be senior and could make it all back up on GSs and good lines."

That could make for a big uh oh...

http://rob.com/pix/var/albums/weird/...g?m=1289692666

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1374361)

At least someone has their eyes open. I'm bumping this because it seems like the union is looking for ways to defend company practices rather than defend the pilots affected.

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1374353)

I agree. Constructive engagement is not a bad practice; it just shouldn't be turned into submissive compliance. We are displaying a remarkably passive approach to unilateral changes to our compensation. The manner in which out times is being computed is being changed, and all I've seen so far is discussions about a resolution (did one pass?).

A huge backlog of grievances that will never go anywhere is nothing to brag about, but why don't we have occasional disagreements? If we don't view a change to the status quo on pay calculations as a reason to disagree, then when will we react?

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1374378)

It cracks me up that some think they are going to, "get the summer off" if they bid the 717.

What is more likely to happen is, they end up stuck in training for the summer, on VA Avenue for all of June, July or Aug! That right there would keep me from bidding it! And if you were the number 1 on it, you may go to school in say, May, but then go back to your old aiplane while awaiting OE, then go back to the box in say, July to get spooled up again, then your OE in Aug.

I seriously doubt the company is going to have a whole bunch of 717 guys sitting around all summer, they will find a way to use them, unless we really are that much over staffed, that they don't need them.