|
Originally Posted by maddogmax
(Post 892675)
The fences applied during the NWA/REP merger not only protected aircraft but CA seats on the aircraft. I.E. NWA pilots had X number of CA positions protected on the 744. If there was an increase in CA positions above that number they were awarded 1 for 1. Seemed fair.
|
Originally Posted by reddog25
(Post 892624)
Yep I knew there was a reason for those DRC assesments.
IMHO, a deferment of 10 years could be argued that any 777 that comes aboard now would be replacement aircraft for those 787. You can bet this will go to an arbitrator. Don't really have a dog in this fight as I am around SSN 4000 and I'll never see CA 777, 747 or 787. However North pilots senior to me would've seen 787 seats before they retired. This isn't about moving bases (777 to DTW). It's about what an expectation from the SLI in regards to WB growth seats should have produced. It is also possible that an arbitrator could 'split the baby' and award seats on new 777 that would replace the 787 on a 1 fDAL and 1 fNWA ratio. No telling what an arbitrator will decide. While I'm not a litigious person, I see it exactly oppositely. The deferments mean the 787s are still coming, therefore there are no replacements for them and the fences remain in place. For the record, I agree with T, when we were tied at 16 each 777s and 747s, the fences should have been pulled. |
I don't recall any FO quotas
|
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 892785)
------------
For the record, I agree with T, when we were tied at 16 each 777s and 747s, the fences should have been pulled. |
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 892761)
Nu,
I have a question for you. If Delta were to try to buy AK, how would YOU want the SLI handled? Relative seniority by equipment types, or DOH? Being a FNWA pilot, I would guess you would want DOH, right? I'd calculate which method would result in my gaining the highest relative seniority, then advocate for that method as if it were the only right, just, and true way of doing business. Further, I'd question the intelligence, ethics, legal status at birth of anyone who disagreed. |
Originally Posted by Reroute
(Post 892794)
Unfortunately, since we went the arbitration route, that can't be done. Our inability to negotiate an SLI left our fates in the hands of arbitrators and now the award can not be modified.
I completely understand that, but just threw my opinion in there. |
Here's my drive-by for today.
It seems we have more ALPA folks on the board here than normal. I appreciate having them here because it strengthens the debate. Even though I'm not an ALPA guy, I'd still like to get FPL for posting on APC too. |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 892820)
Even though I'm not an ALPA guy, I'd still like to get FPL for posting on APC too.
The truth is most "ALPA guys", fly the line and do their ALPA work on their days off. Necessity requires that a small number of them have full time ALPA jobs, but that's covered by 24J of our contract, so it's funded by the company, not our dues. So just like the "ALPA guys", you'll have to post on your own dime. I agree with you that having more participation improves the debate. |
I am sure Nu can answer for himself, but let's turn the tables. If deltr was merge with airtran or jetblue, or allegiant how would you like it? Doh or relative?
Originally Posted by sevenfiveseven
(Post 892472)
I do not have my Arbitrator's award handy but believe that it states in legalese that only "replacement" aircraft would be effected. The 787 orders are deferred, not replaced therefore the awarded fences remain unchanged.
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 892761)
Nu,
I have a question for you. If Delta were to try to buy AK, how would YOU want the SLI handled? Relative seniority by equipment types, or DOH? Being a FNWA pilot, I would guess you would want DOH, right? |
Rumored new aircraft for us caught in LAX ;)
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:51 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands