![]() |
|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1894969)
I went from senior rsv/junior lineholder on a widebody to unable to even hold weekends off on rsv on a narrowbody...
Scope scope scope... |
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 1894977)
I think you might be missing the point: Neither or us can predict how an arbitrator will decide. Example - In 1990 we had a slam-dunk grievance on 747 S/O's flying over the FAR's at NWA. The company was making guys fly over 140 hours in a 30-day period.
We lost. Until released from OE, or if another S/O was present on the flight deck, the arbitrator determined the company could fly us over the FAR's. And I believe you're incorrect on monetary damages for Scope violations. Our NWA contract had a clause that required "...half the revenue generated by…" as a penalty in Section 1.E. So you lost a grievance, now you are too worried to ever let anything go to an arbitrator again? Sounds like a recipe for abuse. |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1894969)
I went from senior rsv/junior lineholder on a widebody to unable to even hold weekends off on rsv on a narrowbody...
Scope scope scope... |
Originally Posted by Justdoinmyjob
(Post 1895001)
Was that really because of scope, or was that just the rebalancing when the 07-09 new hires that went to the ER initially, got displaced during the merger?
|
This has the de facto effect of absolving the company of any meaningful risk should they ignore our scope protections in the future.
We've made the cost of ignoring our scope far less than honoring it. This is a colossal strategic blunder. I'm voting no. We do get to vote, right? |
Originally Posted by Flamer
(Post 1894994)
So you lost a grievance, now you are too worried to ever let anything go to an arbitrator again? Sounds like a recipe for abuse. |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1895014)
Merger, economy, scope... all were factors. Remember, a lot of those displacements were due to pull downs in intl' flying. (look at where we flew then in yurop, SA, and Africa vs. what we do now)
That's actually when we met. You had just finished 73N IOE, I believe. |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1895019)
This has the de facto effect of absolving the company of any meaningful risk should they ignore our scope protections in the future.
We've made the cost of ignoring our scope far less than honoring it. This is a colossal strategic blunder. I'm voting no. We do get to vote, right? |
Originally Posted by NERD
(Post 1894946)
Damn newK,
I take my son to 1 or 2 Ranger games a year and your white sox are drilling us. Should've come last night�� I haven't seen Sale pitch in person, yet. What are you complaining about? You just scored a run. :D P.S. Good thing I was working last night. I heard about how you guys crushed us. ;) |
Originally Posted by Justdoinmyjob
(Post 1895034)
Guess it was different for everybody. I got displaced from ATL ER to NYC ER during that time and like I said before, ended up going from 90% to 40% in four years.
That's actually when we met. You had just finished 73N IOE, I believe. You can't blame it all on the 07/08 guys that got the ER as noobs being displaced since I was senior to all of them. We parked a lot of planes, pulled out of a lot of routes (which cities are now served through the JV), and shifted a lot of flying around. There is not just one factor, but to say that JV scope had nothing to do with it is not accepting reality. Regardless, NYC has been isolated from the backslide due to the low desirability for most- for a while the junior lineholding 320 FO in ATL could hold 88 CA out of NYC. (remember when they closed MEM, they opened NYC 320... guess where those MEM guys went?) |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:43 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands