|
Originally Posted by django
(Post 2609866)
Blue unless your corner office guy ....the facts and info we have as of now lead only to speculation
Bluedriver knows everything. Love when he starts stating facts..... |
Originally Posted by django
(Post 2609866)
Blue unless your corner office guy ....the facts and info we have as of now lead only to speculation
|
Originally Posted by hyperboy
(Post 2609873)
Bluedriver knows everything. Love when he starts stating facts.....
|
Excuse my grammatical faux pas. As to my colleagues comments, don’t confuse fact with conclusions. While facts are just that,data points, no valid conclusions as to staffing can be inferred. No doubt both are based of fact but one or both could be invalid.
|
Wow, we are upgrading enough Airbus captains to staff *TWO* whole new airframes in the next five months!!!
Hold onto your butts gentleman the seniority rollercoaster just left the station! |
Originally Posted by django
(Post 2610062)
Excuse my grammatical faux pas. As to my colleagues comments, don’t confuse fact with conclusions. While facts are just that,data points, no valid conclusions as to staffing can be inferred. No doubt both are based of fact but one or both could be invalid.
You could read every word of the new full-language TA, put it all into an awesome spreadsheet and it would still tell you bubkes. You simply will not know how guys will change their bidding strategy, RSA take-rate, RSA offer-rate, PTO sell-back vs sick call (now that it isn't 150%) without drawing intelligent conclusions or speculating. Even with full language, you will not KNOW how the company will use the language or change how it runs it's business to mitigate the need for more pilots, such as use forced Vaca buy-back, offer more RSAs, falsify OE hour estimates during peak months to withhold additional OE hours from the FO bid, offer more premium pay trips during peak months via the new premium Flica window, etc. None of this will be KNOWN for fact with the full language. To make ANY statement about the staffing repercussions is speculation and conclusions, period. Many on this site have made reference to how the new contract will require additional staffing. I never once noticed you accuse them of speculating or drawing conclusions, most likely because it's what you WANT to hear. I've noticed a pattern on here where I get by-far the most pushback when I say things that dudes don't WANT to hear, even though they are often plainly obvious for those willing to see it and essentially always proven true after the fact. This isn't rocket surgery. We know many of the new paradigms and we can either say nothing whatsoever about staffing or we can make some educated estimates of how pilots and the company will use the new rules for their own respective advantage. No malice intended, just more of the world according to BD. |
Originally Posted by Bluedriver
(Post 2610077)
Django, I believe you've used the words "speculation" and "conclusions".
You could read every word of the new full-language TA, put it all into an awesome spreadsheet and it would still tell you bubkes. You simply will not know how guys will change their bidding strategy, RSA take-rate, RSA offer-rate, PTO sell-back vs sick call (now that it isn't 150%) without drawing intelligent conclusions or speculating. Even with full language, you will not KNOW how the company will use the language or change how it runs it's business to mitigate the need for more pilots, such as use forced Vaca buy-back, offer more RSAs, falsify OE hour estimates during peak months to withhold additional OE hours from the FO bid, offer more premium pay trips during peak months via the new premium Flica window, etc. None of this will be KNOWN for fact with the full language. To make ANY statement about the staffing repercussions is speculation and conclusions, period. Many on this site have made reference to how the new contract will require additional staffing. I never once noticed you accuse them of speculating or drawing conclusions, most likely because it's what you WANT to hear. I've noticed a pattern on here where I get by-far the most pushback when I say things that dudes don't WANT to hear, even though they are often plainly obvious for those willing to see it and essentially always proven true after the fact. This isn't rocket surgery. We know many of the new paradigms and we can either say nothing whatsoever about staffing or we can make some educated estimates of how pilots and the company will use the new rules for their own respective advantage. No malice intended, just more of the world according to BD. Just trying to see how folks reach their conclusions with such certainty. In looking at your well thought post I find myself agreeing with you. I was speaking to the Type A over certainty with which some others speculate. Yes a contradiction in terms ... And no accusation was intended, just a mere observation of our need for certainty. I am NOT Q |
Originally Posted by PasserOGas
(Post 2610047)
Hyper, you should be studying the above since it is most likely correct. Then you will be in a better position to put a positive spin on this crap sandwich when the final language is released.
|
Originally Posted by django
(Post 2610124)
I care little if I find myself in agreement with posters views.
Just trying to see how folks reach their conclusions with such certainty. In looking at your well thought post I find myself agreeing with you. I was speaking to the Type A over certainty with which some others speculate. Yes a contradiction in terms ... And no accusation was intended, just a mere observation of our need for certainty. I am NOT Q Besides, we're pilots, we know EVERYTHING! |
Originally Posted by Bluedriver
(Post 2610077)
Django, I believe you've used the words "speculation" and "conclusions".
You could read every word of the new full-language TA, put it all into an awesome spreadsheet and it would still tell you bubkes. You simply will not know how guys will change their bidding strategy, RSA take-rate, RSA offer-rate, PTO sell-back vs sick call (now that it isn't 150%) without drawing intelligent conclusions or speculating. Even with full language, you will not KNOW how the company will use the language or change how it runs it's business to mitigate the need for more pilots, such as use forced Vaca buy-back, offer more RSAs, falsify OE hour estimates during peak months to withhold additional OE hours from the FO bid, offer more premium pay trips during peak months via the new premium Flica window, etc. None of this will be KNOWN for fact with the full language. To make ANY statement about the staffing repercussions is speculation and conclusions, period. Many on this site have made reference to how the new contract will require additional staffing. I never once noticed you accuse them of speculating or drawing conclusions, most likely because it's what you WANT to hear. I've noticed a pattern on here where I get by-far the most pushback when I say things that dudes don't WANT to hear, even though they are often plainly obvious for those willing to see it and essentially always proven true after the fact. This isn't rocket surgery. We know many of the new paradigms and we can either say nothing whatsoever about staffing or we can make some educated estimates of how pilots and the company will use the new rules for their own respective advantage. No malice intended, just more of the world according to BD. Or you could go to your union meeting follow the MEC direction, read the TA, go to a roadshow, then make your own decision? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:27 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands