Bid Rumors?
11-24-2017, 10:29 PM
#191
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,068
Use whatever term makes you wish, Company and ALPA as well, but there are no such thing as secondary vacancies under this new system. I know 17-01 was posted before the deadline, even if it wasn’t nothing would have changed with respect to additional vacancies being created. They would have adjusted the min/max levels just like they are in 17-02. We could be fully automated and in compliance right now and it would not change one thing about how min/max levels are set.
11-25-2017, 12:44 AM
#192
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by Daniel Larusso
...although that is definitely a moo point since we’re not talking about the old cba here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLwY...hl=en-GB&gl=SG
11-25-2017, 04:13 AM
#193
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by Daniel Larusso
Use whatever term makes you wish, Company and ALPA as well, but there are no such thing as secondary vacancies under this new system. I know 17-01 was posted before the deadline, even if it wasn’t nothing would have changed with respect to additional vacancies being created. They would have adjusted the min/max levels just like they are in 17-02. We could be fully automated and in compliance right now and it would not change one thing about how min/max levels are set.
Of course we know The Company never has to fill Secondary Vacancies, and they chose not to fill Secondary Vacancies in 17-01. We also know The Company needs to post vacancies in more seats than just the Hong Kong left seat, and they announced their intention (in 17-01) to post those vacancies in the Fall of 2017. (Check your calendar.) The deal is they don't consider those vacancies "urgent" -- yet.
And the point you're choosing to miss is The Company should fill secondary vacancies because they need to fill secondary vacancies but they cannot fill secondary vacancies because they have not developed the automation to comply with the CBA they signed TWO YEARS AGO.
Their "urgent need" for captains in Hong Kong can be met with contractual provisions. There is no requirement that the CBA be violated.
GO VOLS!
.
11-25-2017, 04:16 AM
#194
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
I'm willing to give 'ol Dan the benefit of the doubt but this discussion seems way too serious for him to be slipping in a blast from the 90s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLwY...hl=en-GB&gl=SG
.
11-25-2017, 04:34 AM
#195
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,381
Caution, thread drift...
I was talking to a new hire.
He is in a wide body seat.
He was wondering if during the big spring bid, under the new contract rules, would it be possible for him to be "excessed" down to the 757 FO seat.
I said I didn't know.
Any ideas?
There are an awful lot of folks who are in seats higher than their seniority could normally hold. Will the next bid be a "bump and flush"?
I was talking to a new hire.
He is in a wide body seat.
He was wondering if during the big spring bid, under the new contract rules, would it be possible for him to be "excessed" down to the 757 FO seat.
I said I didn't know.
Any ideas?
There are an awful lot of folks who are in seats higher than their seniority could normally hold. Will the next bid be a "bump and flush"?
11-25-2017, 04:53 AM
#197
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by Daniel Larusso
Take a look at some of the other companies that use a similar min/max/dynamic staffing model on bids and you will see similar manipulation of those levels on a given bid just like we are now and will continue to see even when things are fully automated. If you’ve got friends at places like United for example , ask them to send you a copy of some of their system bids and you’ll see what I mean. In fact they see more manipulation than we will probably see for a couple of reasons. They have more bases and categories than we do, meaning the company is more likely to shift staffing seasonally or when they change gauge in a particular market(ie SFO-NRT might go from a 777 to 787 while EWR-NRT might do the opposite). They also tend to have far more, smaller, system bids than we do so the specificity of a particular bid is often higher similar to this 17-02 bid. If they buy 10 used A320’s, they’ll just run a small bid for that with the other min/max levels set not to create additional vacancies.
They, they, they ...They do this, they have that, this is how they do it ...
I don't give a rip about how "they" do it, and I don't need to look at anyone else's company to know that MY COMPANY is violating MY CONTRACT.
Should our motto be, "We'll enforce our contract if we feel like it"?
.
11-25-2017, 04:55 AM
#198
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by urinmyseat
I'm pretty sure every bid from here on out will be a bump and flush.
.
11-25-2017, 05:14 AM
#199
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 936
Originally Posted by Nightflyer
Caution, thread drift...
I was talking to a new hire.
He is in a wide body seat.
He was wondering if during the big spring bid, under the new contract rules, would it be possible for him to be "excessed" down to the 757 FO seat.
I said I didn't know.
Any ideas?
There are an awful lot of folks who are in seats higher than their seniority could normally hold. Will the next bid be a "bump and flush"?
I was talking to a new hire.
He is in a wide body seat.
He was wondering if during the big spring bid, under the new contract rules, would it be possible for him to be "excessed" down to the 757 FO seat.
I said I didn't know.
Any ideas?
There are an awful lot of folks who are in seats higher than their seniority could normally hold. Will the next bid be a "bump and flush"?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
