Originally Posted by Banshee365
(Post 946486)
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. The 700 pairings are terrible too. Naps are nearly gone and there isn't one overnight over 24 hours anymore. There are ton's of long sit's in crappy airports like OMA and MLI. I'm highly leaning towards bidding down to the 200 but like I said... about the greener grass.
|
Originally Posted by AtlCSIP
(Post 946549)
I think you have to bid out of base to go from the 700 to the 200 unless you upgrade.
|
Dual qualified makes it better. Pick the better lines regardless of airplane. And there's no difference between planes that makes it unsafe or need less staffing....
|
Originally Posted by meyers9163
(Post 946647)
Dual qualified makes it better. Pick the better lines regardless of airplane. And there's no difference between planes that makes it unsafe or need less staffing....
Also, you'd be amazed at the number of people here that consider flying the 200,700,900 by one pilot group "unsafe" |
Dual qual would be a huge positive for the company, which typically ends up being a negative for the pilot group. I think it will eventually happen and when it does there better be language against paying primary 700 pilots' vacation and sick time at 50 seat pay rates because that would be a big plus and a cost savings/concession.
|
Originally Posted by Banshee365
(Post 946863)
Dual qual would be a huge positive for the company, which typically ends up being a negative for the pilot group. I think it will eventually happen and when it does there better be language against paying primary 700 pilots' vacation and sick time at 50 seat pay rates because that would be a big plus and a cost savings/concession.
|
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 946837)
I'm all for dual qual under the right conditions, but most ASA pilots consider the words "dual qual" fighting words...
Also, you'd be amazed at the number of people here that consider flying the 200,700,900 by one pilot group "unsafe"
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 946865)
One Blended rate for all eliminates that problem
|
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 946865)
One Blended rate for all eliminates that problem
|
Originally Posted by SilverandSore
(Post 946867)
Yea!! More work and less pay, I'm all for it! That'll get rid of another 50-80 pilot positions (rough estimate), FOs get to wait longer to upgrade, 1/3 of the pilot group takes a pay cut for the other 2/3, and, you're responsible for more limitations, all for less money. What's not to like? Oh wait, let me guess, this will be a blended rate, not the over-ride method, still, 1/3 of the group gets to subsidize 2/3 of the group, the company will love this all in the name of 'better' pairings. Sign us up!
As far a upgrades, there will be enough movement over the next 3 to 5 years that upgrade time won't be a problem. Finding new hires to fly the schedule will be the company's problem |
I wonder if this "pairing optimization" is a mgmt. tactic to convince the majority of pilots that dual qual. is a desirable solution.
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:19 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands