|
|
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1423205)
Be it RJ or widebody, domestic or international, if management wants to put our code on it or sell tickets on it or share revenue on it, then Moak and his disciples in DALPA will find a way. That is his history and there is no sign he plans to change strategy any time soon.
Carl |
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1423646)
Looks like to dispel them. :)
|
Originally Posted by iaflyer
(Post 1423211)
I would be pretty surprised by that - there is a reason that no one flies DC9/717s west of Denver. I believe there are driftdown requirements that can't be met by that type of airplane. We had this problem at a previous airline.
I know a guy, who knows a guy, who said a maintenance guy told him there may be a 717 base in SEA (just to pour some fuel to the fire.) |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1423273)
So why would the company displace pilots only to have them bid right back up Carl?
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1423273)
Oh that's right. Because they need to hire, but aren't allowed to.
Carl |
[QUOTE=FL370;1423662]Does the 717 have less performance than the MD? If memory serves me correct, there was a base somewhere in mountainous terrain filled with 88s and 90s... Is the 717 less capable than CRJ200s and EMB145s? I seem to notice these airplanes all over the West coast.
Allegiant seems to do OK out of LAS with MD80's. My guess is the 717 is a better performer than the 88 and I doubt there is anything LESS capable than the CRJ200. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1423663)
Because in all probability, those positions won't be available for them to "bounce back" to. They'll likely "advance" to lower paying equipment. That's what happens when you have a large surplus of pilots and a reduction in block hours.
No, they don't need to hire...that's why they didn't. It's very simple really. Carl It is quite obvious that the positions to "bounce back to" will be in the form of 739s or equivalent. |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1423514)
Scope Improvement Opportunity. That e-mail sets a new standard for double-speak.
I wish my union would quit trying to baffle me with bull$hit. Management violated the scope clause and once again we decided to allow it. Just frikkin' say it. This January we measure the block hour ratio between mainline and DCI for the first time since our new contract was signed. If management is out of compliance, they'll have until July 2014 to correct the imbalance. I don't know about you, but I sense another opportunity to improve Scope! :rolleyes: Carl |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1423677)
Just to be fair, Carl: There was no mention in a change of the planned hiring early 2014. Just that no hiring this year has been approved, which has been the case all along.
It is quite obvious that the positions to "bounce back to" will be in the form of 739s or equivalent. Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1423691)
Wish I could agree with you man, I really do. But all I see is few retirements, block hour shrinkage, and hundreds of guys on MLOA and furlough bypass. Everything else is just words from "planning".
Carl |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1423501)
I just read that.
"The company failed to keep to the contractual amount of NRT flying, so we let them count HND as well so they would be back in compliance without actually changing any of their plan." .... improvement, how? That is some serious spin! |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:25 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands