pinseeker

I would hope so. It's been two years since the contract was signed. The company should be required to have the bid for training programing done before they post another bid. Why let them get away with not following the contract?

mempurpleflyer

Any idea how we are going to shift from the old bid system to the new? I realize the current training letter can be changed (accelerated) but we still, for example, have 757/767 guys not scheduled for training until mid 2019. They should all be trained before we implement a new system.

Obviously the software needs to be in place to support the new system but we also have to exhaust the current lists.

Daniel Larusso

The only thing we’ve heard in print is the SIG notes that the company is going to evaluate the 75/76 bidpack split deal after they get through training the IND folk over to the LDS cockpits. That seems like it will he sometime in 1Q 2018, but I guess that’s fluid with the last SIG notes saying they’re asking for FAA clarification on something regarding the training plan.

Everything else is just rumors and speculation. In that vein, I don’t expect much outside of maybe a EUR bid before sometime first Q next year. I don’t doubt there are software issues, but if they really had to run a bid from their POV, I’m sure they’d figure out a way to make it happen.

TonyC

My fear is that rather than stonewalling, i.e. defending our contract, The Association is negotiating (i.e. acquiescing to) a settlement agreement which allows The Company to ignore its responsibility to follow the CBA it signed.

Naturally, the MEC won't know anything about it until it's a done deal.

Wouldn't be the first time ...






.

The Walrus

I am required to get my LMS done by a certain date or I lose pay. It's non-negotiable. I just don't understand why anyone thinks that the cba timelines are any different.

Adlerdriver

Unfortunately, many changes to the CBA in 2015 don't actually have a timeline. We accepted vague, deadline free language on a number of improvements that are still pending two years later.

Back in the summer when I really could have used it, EJ in contract enforcement told me the company was targeting the Oct bid month to implement the option to control vacation hours with a secondary line. Now that's delayed further since it has apparently been tied into the new secondary line process which......... is still pending as well.

Bill Kilgore

Posting 10-01: Apr 2010
Posting 10-02: Jul 2010
Posting 11-01: Mar 2011
Posting 11-02: Apr 2011
Posting 12-01: May 2012
Posting 13-01: Jan 2013
Posting 13-02: Feb 2013
Posting 13-03: Apr 2013
Posting 13-04: Apr 2013
Posting 13-05: Aug 2013 (Small 767 bid)
Posting 14-01: Jan 2014
Posting 14-02: Mar 2014
Posting 14-03: Jun 2014 (IND domicile opening)
Posting 14-04: Oct 2014 (excess for HKG transition)
Posting 14-05: Nov 2014 (HKG 767 transition)
Posting 15-01: May 2015
Posting 16-01: Apr 2016
Posting 16-02: Dec 2016 (small EUR 757 bid)
Posting 17-01: Mar 2017

These are all the postings since the Age 65/4A2b bloodletting in '08 and '09. Other than small adjustment bids for new aircraft or domiciles, the company pretty much never runs a large system bid in the fall (PFC has no data pre-2008 maybe before then they did). But not since 2010. Maybe it's true that ALPA is actively colluding with the company against us. Or maybe, I don't know, there's never bids in the fall and we'll see one after Peak. We'll see I guess.

VSTOLG4

Paris hubturn pizza party had a slideshow showing FEB-18 next bid. Bid to train Software and peak are the reasons for delay. Company rep said a bid is strongly needed but can’t be done this time of year anyway....peak rules all.

Overnitefr8

A big bid right now would slow down the IT department and the servers.

DLax85

YGTBSM

We bid for monthly recurrent training slots in seniority order every month

That software flowchart would be homework assignment one in a 1970s middle school programming class

Perhaps someone dropped the punch cards on the way to the compiling machine

Too complicated?? --- that signals the new seniority-based bidding process may not end up being what we envisioned