|
Originally Posted by surreal1221
(Post 701239)
Hate to say it, but our company doesn't necessarily have the best crew schedulers in the world. . .and opening up a new base is going to be one hell of a crazy ride.
|
Originally Posted by USMC3197
(Post 701308)
Why would JA just let DL off the hook with the 50 seaters so we can move them to UAL or other carriers? As long as DL is stuck with our 50 seaters they have to fly them. I heard a while back that DCIs 900 scope maybe maxed out but their 700s are not. Why not a 2 for 1 for 700s and then move those 200s to another carrier? I guess I am just wondering if JA lets DL off the hook it wouldn't be growth. :confused:
|
Originally Posted by USMC3197
(Post 701308)
Why would JA just let DL off the hook with the 50 seaters so we can move them to UAL or other carriers? As long as DL is stuck with our 50 seaters they have to fly them. I heard a while back that DCIs 900 scope maybe maxed out but their 700s are not. Why not a 2 for 1 for 700s and then move those 200s to another carrier? I guess I am just wondering if JA lets DL off the hook it wouldn't be growth. :confused:
I'm thinking that SkyWest Inc is sick of Delta's crap, and they'd prefer to do business with a company who WANTS us, not one that's trying to get rid of us. But with that said, I doubt SKW will let the 80% clause go until the flying becomes unprofitable (after next year). They know that we haven't made the goal of "second lowest cost" and never will, thus the contract rates will be slashed. SKW is hedging its bet. |
Originally Posted by John Pennekamp
(Post 701384)
My opinion is that Delta has been making things difficult for them for a while. First they stiff SkyWest on IROP reimbursements, lawsuit pending. Then they start playing base roulette. Lately with the crazy schedules where flights only operate 3 times a week (other days on other carriers) or we enter a market, establish facilities, then exit the market the next month. Talk has abounded that when the contact opens back up next year, Delta will be slashing SkyWest's profit margins in the cost + arrangement. Now they're shipping us to the Northeast in the winter? Sounds to me like they're just not that into us.
I'm thinking that SkyWest Inc is sick of Delta's crap, and they'd prefer to do business with a company who WANTS us, not one that's trying to get rid of us. But with that said, I doubt SKW will let the 80% clause go until the flying becomes unprofitable (after next year). They know that we haven't made the goal of "second lowest cost" and never will, thus the contract rates will be slashed. SKW is hedging its bet. |
Based on the contract it looks like current 700 FOs cant be forcefully displaced before a more senior 200 FO is.
|
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 701563)
Based on the contract it looks like current 700 FOs cant be forcefully displaced before a more senior 200 FO is.
G. Awarding Positions 1. The awarding of vacancies and/or reductions will be determined as follows from the bid preference forms on file at the time of the closing, using seniority or inverse seniority order as applicable, so that when the process is complete, all pilots will be in the most senior position on their bid preference form that they can hold consistent with the provisions of this Section: a. If there are only position vacancies, they will be awarded in seniority order (both posted and resultant). b. If there are only position reductions, they will be awarded in inverse order of seniority (both posted and resultant). c. If there are position vacancies and position reductions, then all position vacancies (both posted and resultant) will be awarded first in seniority order, then, if any position reductions are still indicated, they will be awarded in inverse order of seniority (both posted and resultant). 2. A pilot who cannot hold his permanent position is considered displaced. No pilot may be displaced by a pilot who is junior to him. A displaced pilot, by order of seniority, will be afforded the following options in selection of paragraph G.2.a. or G.2.b. below, as indicated on the pilot’s bid preference form: Section 24 – Filling of Vacancies a. Captains and first officers may displace: (1) The most junior pilot in the same category in the system, or, if unavailable, then; (2) A more junior pilot in the same status in another aircraft type in the current domicile, or, if unavailable, then; (3) The most junior pilot in the same status in another aircraft type in the system. b. Alternatively, captains may displace: (1) The most junior pilot in a lower status in the same aircraft type in the same domicile or, if unavailable, then; (2) The most junior pilot in a lower status in another aircraft type in the system. |
Trip 7,
I just got an email back from the FO Rep, "[email protected] to [email protected] 8:15pm XXXXX, As an a -200 FO I am trying to interpret the contract correctly. With the upcoming displacement, would a junior -700 FO to me be displaced to IAD before me? Thanks RESPONSE That is correct. Long as you have 30-35 FO's junior to you, you'll be good. You could end up being displaced to the 700 in ATL. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX First Officer Representative Air Line Pilots Association Hope this clears up the mud. |
Originally Posted by Intl Jumper
(Post 701615)
Trip 7,
I just got an email back from the FO Rep, "[email protected] to [email protected] 8:15pm XXXXX, As an a -200 FO I am trying to interpret the contract correctly. With the upcoming displacement, would a junior -700 FO to me be displaced to IAD before me? Thanks RESPONSE That is correct. Long as you have 30-35 FO's junior to you, you'll be good. You could end up being displaced to the 700 in ATL. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX First Officer Representative Air Line Pilots Association Hope this clears up the mud. |
Originally Posted by todd1200
(Post 701593)
Ummm.... what?
a. Captains and first officers may displace: (1) The most junior pilot in the same category in the system, or, if unavailable, then; (2) A more junior pilot in the same status in another aircraft type in the current domicile, or, if unavailable, then; (3) The most junior pilot in the same status in another aircraft type in the system. b. Alternatively, captains may displace: (1) The most junior pilot in a lower status in the same aircraft type in the same domicile or, if unavailable, then; (2) The most junior pilot in a lower status in another aircraft type in the system. |
I'll look more closely at the contract when I get home but someone from FI explained it to me this way:
The only way that I see -700 FO's being displaced to the -200 in IAD ( a double displacement if you will) would be if junior captains bid FO in order to stay in ATL. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but according to section 24 G(a) of the CBA, which lists the order in which people get displaced, the most junior pilot in the same CATEGORY in the system is the first one displaced and then continues until that condition is no longer met. At that point, then (this is a key word in this section) it goes to 24 G(a)(2) and so on. The definition of "Category" is in section 2 and is a combination of pilot status and aircraft type (aka FO CR2). In other words, -200 FO's that are senior to -700 FO's will be displaced before their junior counterparts on the -700. This bid also does not include a -700 vacancy or reduction so -200 FO's will not be able to bid over to avoid it. While that might not be fair, unfortunately, that's the way it looks like it will happen. Of course, this is all assuming that not enough people voluntarily want to go to IAD, so it might be a moot point. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:43 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands