|
|
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 1643602)
I have heard the company wants illegal overights, leans, CDO's, or whatever you want to call them. Usually when I hear something, it's almost a done deal sadly.
What is with the drama today? |
Originally Posted by Pro Fessional
(Post 1643517)
If you need a loan because of a PD it's time for a financial advisor.
I see something wrong with that. Do you? |
Another bid fail. Got three 4-day trips with no days off in between, so effectively a 12 day MD88 rotation since I commute. Yay.
I guess "set condition 2 consecutive days off" doesn't mean what I thought it meant. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1643630)
By bid was as screwed up coming out of PBS as it was going into PBS. :D
:p |
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
(Post 1643634)
I strongly disagree. That means I'm with PD on this one (!). It doesn't matter if he has $10 million in the bank. He was forced to take a PD without pay for doing nothing more than acknowledging a trip assignment as spelled out in the contract.
I see something wrong with that. Do you? Fire away. |
Hey guys looking at PBS my first preference built me a line with 64:45 of credit but it ignored my carry In credit of 4:45 for June 2nd.
Since the 64:45 is below the min of 65:35 it went to my next bid preference and it gave me reserve. Does PBS ignore carry in credit or did PBS make a mistake? |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1643640)
The truth lies somewhere in the middle. If a pilot chooses to be Rosa Parks or Lech Walesa, there is a certain amount of risk involved with that decision. IMHO, they will be made whole at some point in time, but they made the big boy decision to take the risk. Should the union make them whole? That is an excellent question. I'll only say maybe to that one and it truly depends on the circumstances, but I don't think it right that we all assessed to cover someone that took a risk, knowing that it could blow up in their face without then being reimbursed by that party when/if they win the grievance.
Fire away. If not...where do you draw the line? And thanks for the straw man...but no one is asking for the "union" to make us whole. Perhaps just float an interest-free loan for those who need it until that "some point in time" we keep hearing about. |
Originally Posted by Big E 757
(Post 1643585)
I've spoken to a rep twice in the last few months and from what I've gathered, the 117 agreement is going to mostly include language that improves reserve QOL. The issues between our contract and 117 mostly affect reserves, so that's who they're trying to help, for the most part.
I'd love to see a pay raise across the board, but I don't think that is on the table. Expect: 16-18 hour LC leash with acknowledgement so 10 hour rest can happen. Possibly small increase in ADC or pay for vacation day. There were a few other little things they were trying to get but mostly, I think this agreement is going to be targeted towards reserve QOL. If you are a senior person in category, don't expect any improvements in your QOL. The people expecting a raise from this LOA are the ones who aren't going to be happy I haven't talked to anyone "in the know" recently so I have no inside knowledge of what this agreement might contain, just the sense of what they were working on getting in return for the changes required to our contract. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I'm not expecting any across the board improvements. E Door pay, across the board raises and all of that other stuff, would be a pleasant surprise, but I am not expecting that. What made me so curious about the whole thing was the WAY the conversation went. He was really happy go lucky when he was handing out swag and talking about unity. The 177 "announcement" slipped out, and you could tell he wanted to take those words back right away. every time I asked for details, he lowered his voice and got evasive. If 16 hour long call is all we could manage, how did it take this long? |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1643648)
Would you make then same argument about those who decide to honor a strike?
If not...where do you draw the line? And thanks for the straw man...but no one is asking for the "union" to make us whole. Perhaps just float an interest-free loan for those who need it until that "some point in time" we keep hearing about. Your strike question is idiotic, but not surprising coming from you. If you want to take the same amount that they were out from the MCF to be paid back when they are made whole by the company, I have no problem with that. If they lose the grievance however... how do you rectify that? They have to pay back the money upon the grievance decision? |
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 1643605)
They add up. Each one is 1/18 of your paycheck on reserve.
..which I'm sure Alan Shore was just about to point out. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:21 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands