![]() |
|
Guys, the rotation survey participation is woefully inadequate. I've been a slacker but just finished it. It take about 10 minutes.
|
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1685827)
It would not surprise me to see people down bidding for QOL issues with our schedules this tight & FAR 117. It isn't an easy choice, but back, to back, to back, to back coverage awards which mix 4am arrivals with red eyes with 4:30 vans are nearly unflyable.
Let the new hires deal with this crap. |
Originally Posted by iceman49
(Post 1685821)
Have an all dark video...the late night DTW to HND...oh boy!
|
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1685615)
Given that they answer to our reps, I don't see bow they have much choice.
The vast majority of the Committee Chairmen are appointed by the MEC Chairman. There is no formal nomination process. The reps can make suggestions to the MEC Chair, but that's all they are. The elected reps only task at this point is confirmation. Confirmation is usually done "bulk style" with all of the confirmations done on one up or down vote. Individual names can be pulled out of the "bulk list", and can be subjected to a individual confirmation (or discussion), but it involves extra steps. Committee chairs are also subject to recall by the MEC, which would require an agenda item at a meeting, but the MEC Chair can "fire" then at will. Other committee members have no review by the MEC. They are appointed by the Committee Chairs. So the more correct way to put it is: the Chairs are responsible to the MEC Chair, who in turn is responsible to the MEC, but there is no direct "chain of command" from the committees to the MEC. The only exceptions to this are the merger and negotiating committees, all members of which are directly elected by the MEC (which is National ALPA policy, not DALPA policy). Not all MECs have the same policy. The UAL MEC elects most of their Committee Chairs. Other MECs have variations on a theme. Nu |
............
|
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1685530)
I don't think so, but it's easy to check. Just look at the Bid Monitor Reports for the months you're interested in. You can see the number of pilots required and in category, by category, position, fleet, and entire system.
July 2014, total pilots required 10,560, Percent above required 2.9%. 705 more pilots required since C2012 and climbing. |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1685575)
My evidence has already been presented to the pilot group ad nauseum.
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1685575)
Where's your proof?
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1685575)
Let me guess. Management said it was a cost neutral contract? I guess you believe everything management says?
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1685575)
Just like how the 737-900ER order was capacity neutral? Is mainline growing?
Carl |
Originally Posted by 76drvr
(Post 1685861)
July 2012, total pilots required 9, 855. Percent above required 8.3%.
July 2014, total pilots required 10,560, Percent above required 2.9%. 705 more pilots required since C2012 and climbing. I'll agree that some jobs were assisted in creation with C2012, but what is going on now is far bigger than that. |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1685601)
Reps are not necessarily the problem. The entrenched MEC bureaucrats are the guys who won't tolerate dissent or alternate views.
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1685615)
Given that they answer to our reps, I don't see bow they have much choice.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1685827)
It would not surprise me to see people down bidding for QOL issues with our schedules this tight & FAR 117. It isn't an easy choice, but back, to back, to back, to back coverage awards which mix 4am arrivals with red eyes with 4:30 vans are nearly unflyable.
Let the new hires deal with this crap. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:24 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands