![]() |
At Mesaba, the union has just proposed the senior pilots forgo their 2010 pay raises to give the money to the junior pilots. This is not section 6 negotiations, this is the union trying to raise the living standard of the first officers.
Something to watch, and something to think about on the topic of scope recapture. |
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 786541)
At Mesaba, the union has just proposed the senior pilots forgo their 2010 pay raises to give the money to the junior pilots. This is not section 6 negotiations, this is the union trying to raise the living standard of the first officers.
Something to watch, and something to think about on the topic of scope recapture. And what's this got to do with scope? |
Originally Posted by JobHopper
(Post 786548)
Great. Management won't pay them, so let's just get the other pilots to do it. Wouldn't I love to be sitting in the Ivory Tower watching that scenario unfold.:mad:
And what's this got to do with scope? |
Originally Posted by Cycle Pilot
(Post 786368)
Ya... I room with several DL flight attendants and all of them have at least their bachelors degrees.
|
Originally Posted by dragon
(Post 786339)
Waves, the current policy is the nose must be "trending" down before engaging the TRs, They instituted this in October and had a scrape within a week or two (or so the story goes). However, it seems to be working ok now.
BTW, welcome aboard from one Naval Aviator to another! Thanks for the welcome. |
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 786552)
What's funny is management already tried to raise their pay, but the senior pilots told management they wouldn't consider it if it wasn't an equal percentage pay raise for them too. Now the union is trying to force them to raise the rates for the junior guys. This has nothing to do with management, the union sets the pay rates of the pilots.
|
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 786552)
What's funny is management already tried to raise their pay, but the senior pilots told management they wouldn't consider it if it wasn't an equal percentage pay raise for them too.
|
Originally Posted by satchip
(Post 786534)
Hey you 9 denizens out there. Your arguments remind me of when the 141 was scheduled for retirement and the 17 was not the plane it is today. One of the problems of the 141 was it was so old and used and the tech was so old. For example the relays were made of ceramic and were irreplaceable. The ceramic had become so brittle that any mx on them and they crumbled.
Are there any gotchas like that in the 9? We've heard about the bulkhead fix, the avionics, and the hours/cycles limit but are there any other basic mx issues that would force them into retirement? Not trying to denigrate the old bird as I loved the Star Lizard. I saw 241 Lizards replaced by 150 Budas. Same result, not as many jobs or destinations could be served. |
Originally Posted by keenster
(Post 786553)
Tells ya how smart they are. Would you be a Flt Attend if you had a bachelors degree????????:D
|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 786416)
Gotchya.
--- And here is the random morning picture: http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../9/0288955.jpg Bah! You had the wussy electronic pressurization system. What a bunch of slackers. Real men used the old 707 style pneumatic pressurization system. Trival contest. In the above picture, next to the aft cabin zone temp, someone has hand written DNFW. Props to the person who can tell me what it means, and why. And for Sat: Super wasn't kidding about the -9. It has traditionally had the highest dispatch reliability out of all the aircraft. The troublesome stuff that bugged the -9 in the past has been replaced with all new systems: Battery charger, gear position indicators, pressurization (new one is slick), radar etc, etc. The -9 is just an energizer bunny, and if it weren't for aft bulkhead mod, we'd probably re-engine them and fly them for another 40. Nu |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:23 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands