Thanks union . . .
10-15-2020, 01:30 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2018
Posts: 446
Thanks union . . .
I'm trying to comprehend how a 1 for 1 aircraft swap is not a "substitution." From the PWA
This is precisely what is occurring, yet the union is saying that it isn't?!?!
From the faq just sent out:
This is ****ing ridiculous.
Edit:
Looking at the PWA, one for one equal pay. The 700 is not equal pay on the CA side, it is however, on the FO side.
A pilot displaced from his equipment due to a one for one substitution of equal paying equipment at his domicile, may, at the pilot's option, regardless of seniority, transition into the new equipment. This Section is not applicable where the substitution is due solely to a swap of aircraft between domiciles.
From the faq just sent out:
18. Last week, only pilots in IAD were advised to update their Standing Bid Preferences for an “Equipment Substitution”. Why are you now advising ALL pilots system-wide to update their Standing Bid Preference? A week ago, the company was under the impression that the handling of the equipment change would be handled via the PWA 23-D-6-b “Equipment Substitution”. After further discussion with ALPA, it was agreed that this would instead be handled via the normal vacancy award process.
Edit:
Looking at the PWA, one for one equal pay. The 700 is not equal pay on the CA side, it is however, on the FO side.
Last edited by kevin18; 10-15-2020 at 01:42 PM.
10-15-2020, 04:41 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2018
Position: FO
Posts: 494
10-15-2020, 07:29 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2018
Posts: 446
Originally Posted by flydrive
That only applies if there are involuntary displacements. There aren’t any yet.
10-16-2020, 05:01 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: It's a plane and it's a seat
Posts: 950
Originally Posted by coodrough568
that smells like the XJT 175 deal.....
Was slightly addressed in the UA earnings call. Supposedly MAG couldn’t obtain financing and/or a decent rate. At least that’s what the finance guys stayed on the UA earnings call.
10-18-2020, 12:43 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2018
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by flynd94
Was slightly addressed in the UA earnings call. Supposedly MAG couldn’t obtain financing and/or a decent rate. At least that’s what the finance guys stayed on the UA earnings call.
10-19-2020, 10:10 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: It's a plane and it's a seat
Posts: 950
Originally Posted by Ihavenoidea
So does that mean MAG can’t pay for the new 175’s? I assume UA isn’t going to foot that bill and the airplanes will go to whoever can pay for them.
It means that MAG was unable to get financing, UA bought the E175’s and leased them to MAG who pays UA lease on the aircraft.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
