I just got downgraded from Captain to FO
#124
I haven't read the entire thread, so sorry if this question is repetitive. Are you losing flying?
They did this same crap in 2006 and it bit them in the as. All of the furloughs left and then they were strapped when no one came back. Next to Mesa, it has to be one of the worst run airlines in the industry. Upgrading to furloughing in months and doing it TWICE in three years. What jokers.
They did this same crap in 2006 and it bit them in the as. All of the furloughs left and then they were strapped when no one came back. Next to Mesa, it has to be one of the worst run airlines in the industry. Upgrading to furloughing in months and doing it TWICE in three years. What jokers.
#125
It's been discussed in detail.
2006, the prop displacements and other TSH gems have been discussed.
Guys, I really hope for the best for you guys and at worst case Hulas gets his wallet hurt hardcore again but this stuff really makes me feel that leaving was the right thing to do.
2006, the prop displacements and other TSH gems have been discussed.
Guys, I really hope for the best for you guys and at worst case Hulas gets his wallet hurt hardcore again but this stuff really makes me feel that leaving was the right thing to do.
#126
I haven't read the entire thread, so sorry if this question is repetitive. Are you losing flying?
They did this same crap in 2006 and it bit them in the as. All of the furloughs left and then they were strapped when no one came back. Next to Mesa, it has to be one of the worst run airlines in the industry. Upgrading to furloughing in months and doing it TWICE in three years. What jokers.
They did this same crap in 2006 and it bit them in the as. All of the furloughs left and then they were strapped when no one came back. Next to Mesa, it has to be one of the worst run airlines in the industry. Upgrading to furloughing in months and doing it TWICE in three years. What jokers.
#129
I spoke to RZ about it and though his answer may have been "PR" vs. reality he says they have gotten decent response from the LOAs and they are seriously considering not furloughing because it blew up in their faces in 2006. The powers that be are of the opinion that it might be cheaper for the company to remain overstaffed and let attrition level out the staffing over time (apparently people are still leaving, though not as the same rate - many are going to fractionals) than to furlough folks and risk a repeat of last time. He also mentioned that the overstaffing right now is more on the FO side than the CA side. Though there is a slight surplus of captains it isn't that bad. But we'd be pretty fat on FOs. The positive side to this is that if some were let go, the number of CAs downgraded probably wouldn't be many at all, a good thing for all of us.
Also, apparently it is cheaper to park some of our risk flying while oil is high than it is to fly the flights. Parking an airplane and still paying the lease is better than flying it full of pax and bleeding money.
Thats all I have. Basically nothing at all.
Also, apparently it is cheaper to park some of our risk flying while oil is high than it is to fly the flights. Parking an airplane and still paying the lease is better than flying it full of pax and bleeding money.
Thats all I have. Basically nothing at all.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



