Were the furlough returns seatlocked? Did we get a number of TWA 757's in 2007? Was Glen H. pushing capable airplanes further and thus increasing their utilization / block hours? Was Delta growing? Were f-Delta lineholders on the 767 in Atlanta integrated with mid pack junior DC9B's and f-NWA furlough bypass pilots?

In my estimation, those who bypassed recall did so because the opportunity available to them was not good enough for them to decide to return. If the choice was a commute to a DC9 or a commute to an ER position with a significant pay raise and restoration of longevity ... well, those are pretty obviously completely different choices.

Just my opinion man.

It is also my opinion the 767 and ER went junior on a few bids because like any growing category many pilots hold back for a cycle or two in order to get a better idea of what trips their seniority can hold. On the ER that's a pretty big change from low time unaugmented non commutable pairings, higher time domestic, and more valuable augmented pairings. The noob's didn't care, the pay and getting to fly the 767 was enough for them to jump on it at the first opportunity ... and there is not a huge pay differential from the NB to the ER if a guy can bid well on the NB equipment.

Mid and junior NYC ER may flush on this bid because of the value of the trips and lack of com-mutability. We will see. "Call in Honest" (thanks to f-NWA) helps.

I've bid a return to my beloved MD88 to continue working on basic airworthiness through bulletin publication. I could hold a line on the ER, but as some of the more senior guys decided in 2008, there is enough hassle and uncertainty there to make a job in Douglas flight test a better option.

Does that apply to Douglas products? Since nothing works quite the way it is supposed to, I don't see how training is particularly relevant to safe operation.

Basic stick and rudder skills, along with a good eye for terrain features and knowing where to turn are the pilotage skills most required for the job. That ... and always bug the fastest speed you can justify. If the other pilot complains, back it off 1 knot.

I've submitted the idea that the Douglas fleet can participate in the RNAV visuals in Atlanta by simply turning right abeam Stone Mountain at 5,000 feet.

I think you guys don't understand the old NWA system - you could never bid over the high time threshold to get 1.5X. It was just a different way of allocating the premium flying that showed up in open time. The staffing formula was the staffing formula - there was never the ability to manipulate reserve levels to have more or less pilots in a category so that they could be picked up by high time swaps or pick ups. Of course we also had a more rigid position bidding system that did not allow under and over manning of a category and the resultant monthly APA - which also was more rigid in training requirements. The result of this system forced the company to be more responsible in their staffing. Of course the downside was the potential of furloughs, but those are self limiting due to cost just like they are now.

Sounds like the issue here is not whether it's 1.5 over 80 or GS, but the contractual flexibility the company has with actual manning within the staffing formula. Under the NWA system they would have been contractually required to hire to staff the 717 instead of the current AE shell game underway. :eek:

Correct... as soon as your start training for the new jet, you have to at least go through the short course for your old one and then have another OE.

I can see how Airbus to Douglas might be a little bit of a change :)

nevermind others beat me to it :)

They are statistically calculated.

If we are less latent, block times go down. And as you love to say, block hours are what bring pilot jobs.

So...what happens when block times go down? ;)

I'm not sure of the exact wording in the conract, is it after 'school' or is it after IOE, that they cannot send you back to your old airplane?

I thought it was after IOE, and they convert you, but maybe it's once you start your ground school? I would hope it's school, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's IOE.

When I upgraded to the MD88, I got to return to the right seat of the 757 after my MD88 IOE, for 3 months, and go through 757 recurrent, before they converted me to the Mad Doggy. When I asked for another IOE, they said, "We don't have enough LCA's, you'll be fine..." :eek:

So when I showed up for my first Capt. trip, I said to my first F/O, who was the number one MD88 F/O, and in my new hire class and 8 numbers senior to me, "Just keep me off CNN, and I'll buy all the beer." :D

I assume that we didn't have ACARS-generated times linked to the beacon in 1972, and Iassume there were bulletins to describe this, just like there were buleltins on our fleet discussing various aircraft, as they relate to time after the merger. So let's ignore the bulletin issue.

Besides, the changes reside in the actual triggers, not the theory that's being articulated to explain the changes. It doesn't matter what is being said, it matters what is being paid.

In my time, and particularly since the merger, we've gone from pilots controlling the time (through the beacon or the brakes), to the introduction of aircraft that operate on brakes, and modifications to existing PMDAL aircraft, depending on the ACRAS I believe. I've blocked in to gate 1 at LGA, where the IN time was based on the previous parking brake application (but it didn't show until the final setting of the brakes). So no credit for the tow-in, and a false IN time are created. There is an example for you.

Now I believe some airplanes will work on GPS (737-700?). I've never seen any data on how much of a move it takes to trigger a GPS OUT, but there are times when I believe we could get a clearance to push, immediately cancelled, and the GPS would never know. Another example for you.

So we've changed in that the Captain could previously account for the circumstances on the ground, and ensure that we had proper OUT/IN times, and now (s)he can't make that call.

Ok, I agree with that however again what is the change that would be grieved. The contract is and always has been very specific on what block time is. The definition is first movement of the aircraft with intent to fly to the last movement of the aircraft on arrival. That is also the FAR definition of flight time.
Are you saying we should go before the arbitrator and explain that the pilots have been cheating the system because its easy and now the company is going to make cheating harder so we have been harmed?