|
|
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1642977)
You're too new to make that post. You haven't even learned the secret handshake yet.
Do they teach guys about the back door at indoc nowadays? |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1642917)
It's not a contract violation until 1 Mar 2015. I told my reps what I expect and they were in agreement. A grievance will be filed and I expect the pilot group to be compensated for the loss of flying.
|
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1642962)
Why agree to that? Because before the agreement, there was no limit to what they could cut elsewhere. It's called insurance. We were trading a very small amount of flying for protection of much more flying. Would you rather they cut all the westbound Hawaii flying to keep that little bit of NRT flying? NRT is gonna die someday. The 787 was designed to deliver the coup de grace, and fortunately that thing isn't on the property, or you'd reallllly hear some squawking.
Maybe, but is it really "insurance" if the company seems to basically disregard these agreements as it pleases? Hell - if the company stuck to these agreements we wouldn't be discussing the Atlantic JV numbers. It may be insurance, but if you have to take your insurance company to court (think grievance) in order to get paid it is not "good" insurance. Scoop |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1642973)
One other thing to add. Absent revolutions in Egypt, Kiev and Syria the company would have been in compliance. Those flights had nothing to do with the JV. As I have said I expect the pilot group to be compensated for the loss of jobs.
As for EASK being smoke and mirrors it's the only thing that matters as far as the contract and we have very good people watching the numbers. |
Not to mention AF took advantage of another massive loophole in the agreement. While we captured below floor cargo in the ESK metrics, they figured out they could add an all cargo 747 that wouldn't count one ounce towards the limits. Then again, there's no money in cargos.
Indeed. |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1642944)
We surrendered our Narita language in exchange for a bucket of warm spit. We got a promise from management that they would only cut the Pacific flying to 85% of current levels. Gee thanks. They can whack another 15%. Why would we agree to that? We got another useless production balance in return that starts from a lower base line. We ratified more job losses.
/rant "Converting the 316 weekly slots to annual block hours results in a value of 116,400 hours, representing 54 percent of the 2014 projected Pacific block hours. While the 316 slots protected 80 percent of the NRT slots in 1998 (but only 54 percent of the currently projected Pacific block hours), LOA 13-03 protects 85 percent of all Pacific block hours." Public math alert, but 85% > 54%. |
Originally Posted by TenYearsGone
(Post 1642966)
Keep your backpacks on..:D
|
Originally Posted by ExAF
(Post 1642998)
My money's on the deck.;):D
|
Am just bummed we can only backdoor once a month.
|
Originally Posted by Flamer
(Post 1643013)
I agree. But you must admit it is highly likely it will be violated. So, for a current violation what say you on the PDs being handed out to reserves while following the contract exactly as written?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:13 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands