Originally Posted by MoonShot (Post 1671038)

Anyone have any experience trying to push CQ as far back as possible because they are going to train on a new aircraft before they drop dead?

I'm projected to go to 7ER requal in Oct, and my current CQ cycle is Aug-Oct. I'm 1 from the bottom, so while I'll bid to avoid going early, I get whats left.

Is it worth a call to resources to suggest delaying CQ, or will they laugh me off the phone?

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 1671022)

That's what the voicemail said. It's been over half an hour.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1671044)

It will go away soon. They probably had a shorter notice trip pop up they need to cover first. Easiest solution is don't ask for a trip if you don't want it.

Originally Posted by Check Essential (Post 1670985)

One thing that might be scarier is actually having to abort at V1 in that same 900.

With the de-rates they are using, we are sure making use of all the available concrete.

I'm sure the performance numbers are valid, but wow - it sometimes doesn't look like there's any way we'd have been able to stop from V1.

Added to that is the fact that Flt Ops has all the 737 pilots spooked about banging the tail on the 900s.
Nobody wants to rotate faster than about 1 degree per second.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1670840)

Carl,

The RLA stipulates “work now (i.e. transport the goods) and grieve later.” This phrase was extrapolated from the stated purpose of the law; to prevent disruptions of commerce and to instead provide a means for resolution of disputes.

Your would have to research Court decisions which have interpreted Congress's language in the RLA. In a nutshell, the exceptions are that workers are not required to perform tasks that they reasonably believe to be unsafe. Workers are also not required to perform when the request is “clearly” a violation of the contract. (The courts have interpreted this to mean that if the company can make a reasonable claim that the contract justifies their request –regardless of whether they are right or wrong – then the employee should err on the side of performing the work, and grieving the incident later.)

Courier, Express, and Postal Observer: Negotiating under the Railway Labor Act

45 U.S. Code § 151a - General purposes | LII / Legal Information Institute

45 U.S. Code § 156 - Procedure in changing rates of pay, rules, and working conditions | LII / Legal Information Institute

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1671047)

It's a proffer isn't it? If it isn't it should be. It is really stupid for them to try and "force" a pilot to fly a trip for 2X when he can't make it/had a flat tire/got drunk/whatever..... only to then call in sick 2 hrs prior and put the onus on skeds to try and scramble to cover it. GSs should all be proffers, I don't care what the timing is.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1671112)

Yes.

IMHO we should work to modify the RLA. There is no reason, with the amount of network overlap, that our economy requires us to forgo our rights in the interest of commerce. It isn't like any airline has a monopoly on the only rail spur serving New York, or the US post.

The RLA is outdated. Further our employers regularly do engage in self help (moving jets from mainline to DCI and around DCI to punish those bold enough to stand against concessions) which should be an illegal practice if the spirit of the regulation were to be upheld.

Mostly, the RLA is only enforced against us. It is unfair and it should go away.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1670889)

I don't see anything wrong with the article. He has stayed consistent that it's fine that it exists but needs reform. That is the some position there.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1671128)

It appears he has softened his position a bit. Is it possible there are Boeings in our future?