Mesa
11-09-2014 | 05:06 AM
#3991
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
From: Bob's Big Boy Front Office Staffer
I disagree with this, but not saying you are wrong. It is a unique situation however. I have not know anyone in this particular situation before. Normally when we displace it was going to be a long time before you upgraded again anyway. However, how I feel is if you get downgraded with a displacement, you can rebid any captain position whenever and whatever your seniority can hold. There is nothing in the contract specific to this situation however. What you are suggesting is that the company is forcing the FO to remain CRJ FO until he has the seniority to hold CRJ Captain again (under the previous equipment displacement applied to his upgrade) which could be years if we have no growth on the CRJ or wait out his previous 3 year lock which was not his fault a displacement happened to screw him over. This does not sound like something that they would do. Once an FO, I don't see how they could stop you from bidding E-Jet. Your not a captain so how is the Captain seat lock valid? It was not his/her fault that a displacement happened. This would definitely be a grievance. This is why we need more language in our contract. I went from the Dash 8 Captain to a displacement into the ERJ Captain and could have bid CRJ CA the moment I passed upgrade, because I had no equipment locks since it was all under a displacement. Thats why I don't agree with you on this. I am not saying you are wrong however. It is a unique situation that was beyond the control of the person under displacement and this situation has not happened like this before at Mesa. So you can't say for sure they would be stuck as an FO because of the previous seat lock and not able to bid the E-jet...
11-09-2014 | 05:27 AM
#3992
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
The company may waive equipment locks at its discretion, however the contract states in 2 places that displaced pilots are subject to any remaining equipment locks they had not completed prior to being displaced.
11-09-2014 | 11:30 AM
#3993
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
From: Airbus FO
Yeah I just looked and found the two sections. Looks like they would be stuck as an FO. I hadn't thought about this situation in this way before. Man Mesa really knows how to screw guys over. I hope they didn't bid to downgrade then if they had an equipment lock. I don't get why they would want to bid to downgrade anyway because if they just upgraded, why didn't they just bid to upgrade in the E-jet instead? Maybe they realized the mistake they made upgrading in the CRJ and being stuck at the bottom for a very long time and are jealous of the E-jet guys junior getting lines now.
11-09-2014 | 01:23 PM
#3994
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 977
Likes: 0
Yeah I just looked and found the two sections. Looks like they would be stuck as an FO. I hadn't thought about this situation in this way before. Man Mesa really knows how to screw guys over. I hope they didn't bid to downgrade then if they had an equipment lock. I don't get why they would want to bid to downgrade anyway because if they just upgraded, why didn't they just bid to upgrade in the E-jet instead? Maybe they realized the mistake they made upgrading in the CRJ and being stuck at the bottom for a very long time and are jealous of the E-jet guys junior getting lines now.
This is the problem with the RLA, grievance, and negotiating process we're stuck with as pilots--there is a glaring difference in opinion between the union and company on:
1) How the CLT closure is being done ("it's kind of closing Dec. 1st but not really"????? What?????)
2) This unintelligible paradox: the base variant for all CRJ pilots is a 50-seater (for pay purposes), but the EJet--an all 76-seat fleet--is somehow not considered a "pay raise" for equipment bidding purposes?
...yet, it'll take months, years, decades before any new contractual language or arbitration results in any resolution of the above issues.
A "better" RLA would enforce short, firm timelines for the resolution of disputes designated as "high priority" by companies and/or unions. If >6 months goes by after a high priority grievance (such as the CRJ CA->EJet CA issue), it automatically goes to an arbitrator for a decision. If >6 months goes by after a CBA expires, any open sections automatically go to an arbitrator for a decision.
There needs to be a fire under both companies and unions to resolve material disputes and issues with economic consequences for employees and/or corporations. Otherwise, no company has any incentive but to twist language beyond the limits of insanity and deal with the minor economic consequences years later. And no union has any other incentive but to defend even the most obviously-belligerent, incompetent pilot from discipline/termination, because our current grievance process is like a messed up long-term horse trading game where the only people who lose in the long-run are the average line pilots who just wanted to show up, fly, go home, and mind their own business.
11-09-2014 | 02:03 PM
#3995
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
From: rj left
Well, when I say "recently upgraded" I mean in the last 3 years. Like, people who upgraded before the EJets were announced. If I was one of those folks I'd be ****ed.
This is the problem with the RLA, grievance, and negotiating process we're stuck with as pilots--there is a glaring difference in opinion between the union and company on:
1) How the CLT closure is being done ("it's kind of closing Dec. 1st but not really"????? What?????)
2) This unintelligible paradox: the base variant for all CRJ pilots is a 50-seater (for pay purposes), but the EJet--an all 76-seat fleet--is somehow not considered a "pay raise" for equipment bidding purposes?
...yet, it'll take months, years, decades before any new contractual language or arbitration results in any resolution of the above issues.
A "better" RLA would enforce short, firm timelines for the resolution of disputes designated as "high priority" by companies and/or unions. If >6 months goes by after a high priority grievance (such as the CRJ CA->EJet CA issue), it automatically goes to an arbitrator for a decision. If >6 months goes by after a CBA expires, any open sections automatically go to an arbitrator for a decision.
There needs to be a fire under both companies and unions to resolve material disputes and issues with economic consequences for employees and/or corporations. Otherwise, no company has any incentive but to twist language beyond the limits of insanity and deal with the minor economic consequences years later. And no union has any other incentive but to defend even the most obviously-belligerent, incompetent pilot from discipline/termination, because our current grievance process is like a messed up long-term horse trading game where the only people who lose in the long-run are the average line pilots who just wanted to show up, fly, go home, and mind their own business.
This is the problem with the RLA, grievance, and negotiating process we're stuck with as pilots--there is a glaring difference in opinion between the union and company on:
1) How the CLT closure is being done ("it's kind of closing Dec. 1st but not really"????? What?????)
2) This unintelligible paradox: the base variant for all CRJ pilots is a 50-seater (for pay purposes), but the EJet--an all 76-seat fleet--is somehow not considered a "pay raise" for equipment bidding purposes?
...yet, it'll take months, years, decades before any new contractual language or arbitration results in any resolution of the above issues.
A "better" RLA would enforce short, firm timelines for the resolution of disputes designated as "high priority" by companies and/or unions. If >6 months goes by after a high priority grievance (such as the CRJ CA->EJet CA issue), it automatically goes to an arbitrator for a decision. If >6 months goes by after a CBA expires, any open sections automatically go to an arbitrator for a decision.
There needs to be a fire under both companies and unions to resolve material disputes and issues with economic consequences for employees and/or corporations. Otherwise, no company has any incentive but to twist language beyond the limits of insanity and deal with the minor economic consequences years later. And no union has any other incentive but to defend even the most obviously-belligerent, incompetent pilot from discipline/termination, because our current grievance process is like a messed up long-term horse trading game where the only people who lose in the long-run are the average line pilots who just wanted to show up, fly, go home, and mind their own business.
11-10-2014 | 04:07 PM
#3996
Living the Dream
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 0
Glad to see the Standing Bid department is hard at work on 2015 Vacations. A true feat in prioritization.
11-11-2014 | 08:48 AM
#3998
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Does anybody know when Mesa's next open house is?
11-11-2014 | 09:33 PM
#3999
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 977
Likes: 0
I'd be like "hey, new guy, can I get some landing gear, or is that going to give you a rage stroke? Please? Gear down? I hope you're not ****ed at me."
11-11-2014 | 09:57 PM
#4000
Living the Dream
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 0
Next thing you know you'd be asking me for flaps. Where would it end?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
