Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedtape
Oh man do I love that line. Exactly who is my "elder" ?
Would that be the dozens of 19 year old girls with 500 TT who flew right seat for me for less than 6 months before waltzing right over to UAL to fly a heavy for more $$ than I've ever made ? Or maybe its the young intern who scribbled a note on the back of a piece of flight paperwork that said "I resign"
and faxed to our CP from an outstation then left without even finishing his 4 day pairing?
I had 10,000 hours and 3 type ratings before coming to CAL, and I'm not about to go quietly to the bottom and hope to fly one of UAL's ratty run out 320's while a furlough takes the shiny 767-400 off to Rome.
Ain't gonna happen. CAL has newer better equipped aircraft, and more on order with actual financing in hand to pay for them. Gotta consider that
Ah, the 500 hour wonders at UA.
First, UA didn't want them and when they ****ed on the EEOCs shoes got them rammed down their throat with an order from the govt.
Many have been eliminated over the course of time and many became fine pilots.
As to your estimation of aircraft orders and their impact on SLI, I think some research on your part is due. Take a look at their weight given in previous SLIs.
The real issue will be the addition of longevity as a point of consideration in the SLI process. This was obviously added for a valid reason.
Remember, no pilot will loose their current flying position as a result of the SLI. They will however perhaps see a negative seniority percentage integration if longevity is weighted significantly in the process and deal with that if/when bumps occur downstream as management tweeks the new airline.
Personally, I'm interested to see how it all turns out. I believe it will go to arbitration and with the new longevity provision will result in a new baseline given the lack of precedent.
Lee