Envoy
12-13-2017 | 08:39 AM
#6161
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
I'm upgrading in February and back in November when I bid for vacation, I bid three blocks. After the bids closed I got a HI6 that said I was ineligible for block 23, which was fine because I bid for two other blocks, based on grievance settlement MEC-0807. Today I got another HI6 saying my vacation was assigned to me referencing the CBA 8c-8c. The vacation I got is not what I wanted at all and wanted to see if anyone knows if there are any grounds to change this.
12-13-2017 | 08:49 AM
#6163
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
More evidence that metering below 50 percent flow-through was unjustified and unnecessary in November. They only sent 29 percent. Yet they're not short-staffed. What a joke. Most statuses are full of reserves every day, not flying, just sitting.
Once again, the "flow" seems to be a deception.
These are my own opinions and not those of any other entity or employer.
Once again, the "flow" seems to be a deception.
These are my own opinions and not those of any other entity or employer.
12-13-2017 | 08:50 AM
#6164
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,607
Likes: 12
12-13-2017 | 09:09 AM
#6170
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,607
Likes: 12
Well that sucks then. Next questioned, if someone didn't bid for a zero time line, are they at risk of it falling to them anyway? Or is it like standby lines, you have to have bid for it to get it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
