lol man you have some sort of sad obsession with me

edit: and for the record I wasn't "ragging" on the guy just pointing out that some of us have done our part

 

The reason you get pay so low and no raise since 4/2003



A listers and your current MEC Chair

That's the fact

 

Good job avi8tor614! Saw in the news letter that the ejet will be doing a lot of Mexico by the end of the year. Lets hope that all of your info is good

 

I still don't see how we are going to have that many e jets in one hub unless xjet or skywest get completely moved out.

 

I think Skywest has 15 crj700's leaving Houston. That'll make some room, if true.

 

Given recent news announcements from UAL, and the acutely declining local economy around IAH, mainline will likely start downgauging 737/Airbus routes/slots in IAH to smaller-gauge equipment (a.k.a. regional equipment). It seems pretty obvious they're shifting focus/capacity to more profitable markets in SFO/DEN/elsewhere.

Think about how much business travel in the Houston area comes from the big offshore oil and fracking players, not to mention the ancillary financial, engineering, accounting, and specialty equipment services wholly reliant upon offshore oil and West Texas fracking ops.

Schedules are set and tickets are booked weeks/months in advance, and it takes time for behemoth companies like Exxon to start slashing costs, jobs and corporate travel budgets--but it's starting, and reduced demand will logically result in 737/Airbus routes/slots being downgauged to EJets.

I was hopeful for IAD/elsewhere--I would even go to EWR!!! But with these Mexico routes announced, RONs in IAD, 3-5 planes on service checks in OKC every night, and the impending downgauging of mainline routes, I now see IAH fully accomodating the whole Mesa EJet fleet.

 

Hmm, I wonder if that conclusion would also present a harder commute to IAH for many?

 

Uh really?

Crew Line Adjustments Supervisor V. V: Your extra efforts were recognized by a crewmember who wrote to say, "THANK YOU, I can't say it enough! I know that it's tough and you guys aren't always appreciated. I really do appreciate you and your staff on making our lives easier!"

 

That fact is its the companies unwillingness to pay more.

 

How's that section 6 interpretation coming on the new hire payments/iPads?

Not being confrontational, just wondering. I am assuming the company's position is that they have a past practice of making unilateral changes outside of the CBA without challenge from ALPA, the new hire bonuses being just one of a series of changes made by management since the section 6 notice was served.

What's your interpretation?

I would really actually like to discuss this topic with you on here--it's good for the new folks to read and learn about this kind of stuff.

This is a good read: http://apps.americanbar.org/labor/an...ers/v2/012.pdf

"As section 6 expressly provides, once a section 6 notice has been served, neither side can change the status quo. In Detroit & T.S.L. R.R. v. UTU, 396 U.S. 142, 153 (1969), the Supreme Court defined the status quo as “those actual, objective working conditions and practices, broadly conceived, which were in effect prior to the time the pending dispute arose . . . .” Neither side can change current practice under the prior agreement, whether or not the practice is reflected in the terms of the written agreement, until all of the bargaining procedures of the Act have been exhausted.

The expiration date of the agreement, if any, makes no difference; the parties remain locked in the status quo. Where the past practice has been to allow management to make changes, however, that right continues to be available