PNCL Scope Ruling
#82
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Maybe they have a thing with JetU, but every single person in a recent interview group at 1000+TT, with 3 former corporate pilots, a laid-off 121 guy, and a charter guy...all of whom had significant turbine SIC time. While there might be the occasional JetU person in there, it's predominantly high time street-captain types.
#84
#85
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,356
Likes: 0
From: CRJ
talked to one of the union guys. the ruling is in, and they are preparing to give us all the information after the alpa lawyers and people go through it, will be out this coming week. the reason they have been so quiet is they don't want to get the arbitrator all p o 'd at us for saying stuff like, "yeah we won the ruling but he hasn't put out his final report yet so we have to wait for that, but yeah we won"... things like that make the arbitrator a little upset. its pretty much just playing it safe, waiting for the written ruling to come down, and then dissimenating the information.
Last edited by Airsupport; 02-23-2008 at 04:42 PM.
#86
************
I also checked and even as a captain at RAH you still can't switch between aircraft once the two year seatlock is up unless moving to higher pay. So 145-> 170 but if they open a base in your home after you take the 170 tough cookies. Kinda sucks.
#87
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,857
Likes: 0
I've always been under the impression that CAs could only move to higher-paying aircraft, but I recently heard of one guy who upgraded to the 145, transistioned to the 170, and came back to the 145 because he disliked the 170. There's language in the contract that says the company isn't required to allow this, but I couldn't find anything that specifically prohibits it. I don't know if the company allows this in certain situations, or if the story is bull and nobody is allowed to do it.
#88
Were you drunk when you posted this, or just feeling the effects of all those paint chips you ate as a child?
Chautauqua does not have domiciles in either DEN or ATL. If we did have bases at those airports, you could switch back and forth every other month if you wanted (assuming you didn't get locked out by senior people filling your vacancy).
Everybody flying on the Chautauqua certificate is flying the LOWEST-paying aircraft on property at RAH. We fly the tiny planes, so we get the tiny paychecks.
Chautauqua does not have domiciles in either DEN or ATL. If we did have bases at those airports, you could switch back and forth every other month if you wanted (assuming you didn't get locked out by senior people filling your vacancy).
Everybody flying on the Chautauqua certificate is flying the LOWEST-paying aircraft on property at RAH. We fly the tiny planes, so we get the tiny paychecks.
You’d think that anyone with any lick of common sense would be able to read between the lines, but then a poster like you comes along and hangs your short comings out for everyone to see. Next time check you arrogance at the door and get a clue that not everyone knows which a/c your company operates for which of your 6 carriers. For heavens sake you fly them on 3 different certificates for 6 different carriers.
Last edited by JetJock16; 02-23-2008 at 07:07 PM.
#89
I've always been under the impression that CAs could only move to higher-paying aircraft, but I recently heard of one guy who upgraded to the 145, transistioned to the 170, and came back to the 145 because he disliked the 170. There's language in the contract that says the company isn't required to allow this, but I couldn't find anything that specifically prohibits it. I don't know if the company allows this in certain situations, or if the story is bull and nobody is allowed to do it.
#90
Wexford owns a 4th one and of course there's the rumors of us picking up a 5th.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



