|
Relative seniority is the only fair way to go:eek:
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1223246)
Very very close. I do not have their most current award but it was close prior to that one.
|
Originally Posted by dalad
(Post 1223245)
Only 500+ pilots with lots of 330's, 350's, on order. Is it true that the junior 330A is a 2000 hire?
|
They have hired over 25% of their list in the last year or so.
|
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1223268)
They have hired over 25% of their list in the last year or so.
|
Originally Posted by Columbia
(Post 1223281)
Then DOH it is! Actually if that's the case, I would guess a combination relative/DOH would work best. Cant imagine a 2012 hal hire would be 75-80% on the combined list.
|
Haven't decided anything yet. Just talking about it..... Always good to "what if" a variety of possible scenarios.
|
Originally Posted by Columbia
(Post 1223303)
Haven't decided anything yet. Just talking about it..... Always good to "what if" a variety of possible scenarios.
|
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1221863)
Okay, the voting is over and the TA is now our PWA. I ask this question in all seriousness. I'm not trying to flamebait anyone. My question is for the no voters. "What needs to happen within the duration of this new contract for you to possibly say........maybe the yes voters were right?" Is there a number the seniority list needs to grow to? Is there a average monthly reserve hours flown that we would need to be below? Or is there nothing that can happen...
I'm just wondering what it will take happening over the next 3 years to maybe change your minds...... Denny Great question. There were two things that most concerned me with this agreement: 1.) increased productivity -- requiring less piloits, and 2.) 76 seat RJ's. For my increased productivity concern, it would be great if the formula and other gains worked in a way that there really were no displacements. I'd then say, on that point, the "yes" voters were right. For my 76 seat RJ concern, that is a little more tricky. I guess in my mind that is flying we had in the recent past and we should always be trying to get it back. IMO, if we had made even a slight inroad into doing so, it would have made it easier for United to do so with their management. So, I would have to say I would say the "yes" voters could only be right if the company didn't take delivery of all the 76 seaters they wanted or if they announced that some of those 76 seat pilots were coming over to the Delta seniority list with the airplanes. Until something like that happens, even if I were sitting left seat of the 747-400, I would always look at 70+ seaters and say, "we never should have given those away." New K |
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1223340)
Denny,
Great question. There were two things that most concerned me with this agreement: 1.) increased productivity -- requiring less piloits, and 2.) 76 seat RJ's. For my increased productivity concern, it would be great if the formula and other gains worked in a way that there really were no displacements. I'd then say, on that point, the "yes" voters were right. Fair enough. I would add that, prior to the agreement, the company announced the 737-900 purchase and that they would essentially be replacements for 757's and 320's. Those displacements were already in the works.... For my 76 seat RJ concern, that is a little more tricky. I guess in my mind that is flying we had in the recent past and we should always be trying to get it back. IMO, if we had made even a slight inroad into doing so, it would have made it easier for United to do so with their management. So, I would have to say I would say the "yes" voters could only be right if the company didn't take delivery of all the 76 seaters they wanted or if they announced that some of those 76 seat pilots were coming over to the Delta seniority list with the airplanes. I agree, we should always be trying to get ALL DCI flying back. How we go about achieving that goal is highly debatable!!:D I'll leave it at that until the next time!:) Until something like that happens, even if I were sitting left seat of the 747-400, I would always look at 70+ seaters and say, "we never should have given those away." New K Denny |
Denny;
Those 739 may also be the sole reason we hire earlier than planned. Why? The aircraft they are replacing are the flex fleet. Keep some of those airplanes slated for retirement, we will need bodies. That is absent this agreement, but combined with this agreement, there is a little more flex for the company. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:04 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands