SPA union doesn’t care about seniority
#21
The company can withhold an additional 3% of scheduled flying for IOE/OE 25.B.1. It doesn’t say what type of trips.
So I’ll ask again. Is the flying not being withheld before the navblue pbs bid and your trips are being denied in your bid because they are going to training, or do the trips not exist in the navblue pairing packet because they were withheld for training?
If they were withheld prior to navblue it’s completely legal per the contract and is not new. The company can withhold whatever 5% and another 3% of flying for IOE/OE that they want. This is so that the check airman don’t bid regular lines and then the company has to buy the FO off everyone of their trips. Sure would be nice but that is something we never had here at Spirit at least since I’ve been here.
If you want to stipulate what type of flying the company can withhold in their 5+3% withholding then we need to negotiate that because it’s certainly not in the language now.
I feel the pain and I’ve always thought check airmen should bid in the regular bid and FOs get bought off to add the pilot doing IOE/OE. Put that in the bucket of priorities that’s filling up quick. I’m all for complaining but you sound like you are complaining about something happening that isn’t legal which to my knowledge isn’t the case but I could be wrong.
So I’ll ask again. Is the flying not being withheld before the navblue pbs bid and your trips are being denied in your bid because they are going to training, or do the trips not exist in the navblue pairing packet because they were withheld for training?
If they were withheld prior to navblue it’s completely legal per the contract and is not new. The company can withhold whatever 5% and another 3% of flying for IOE/OE that they want. This is so that the check airman don’t bid regular lines and then the company has to buy the FO off everyone of their trips. Sure would be nice but that is something we never had here at Spirit at least since I’ve been here.
If you want to stipulate what type of flying the company can withhold in their 5+3% withholding then we need to negotiate that because it’s certainly not in the language now.
I feel the pain and I’ve always thought check airmen should bid in the regular bid and FOs get bought off to add the pilot doing IOE/OE. Put that in the bucket of priorities that’s filling up quick. I’m all for complaining but you sound like you are complaining about something happening that isn’t legal which to my knowledge isn’t the case but I could be wrong.
#22
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: 7th green
Posts: 4,378
It seems (and I don't know your contract) that if your MEC would just enforce the language you wouldn't have or need to make such a draconian suggestion. By the way, using IPs and Management pilots as "super reserves" isn't right either.
Working training is a two edged sword. It has its benefits but it also keeps you away from what you dreamed of as a kid...flying the jet.
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,603
Not a Spirit guy and reading the thread you seem to have a valid gripe. My question is if you ban ALPA members from the training department, who are you going to get to do it? Contractors?
It seems (and I don't know your contract) that if your MEC would just enforce the language you wouldn't have or need to make such a draconian suggestion. By the way, using IPs and Management pilots as "super reserves" isn't right either.
Working training is a two edged sword. It has its benefits but it also keeps you away from what you dreamed of as a kid...flying the jet.
It seems (and I don't know your contract) that if your MEC would just enforce the language you wouldn't have or need to make such a draconian suggestion. By the way, using IPs and Management pilots as "super reserves" isn't right either.
Working training is a two edged sword. It has its benefits but it also keeps you away from what you dreamed of as a kid...flying the jet.
#24
Not a Spirit guy and reading the thread you seem to have a valid gripe. My question is if you ban ALPA members from the training department, who are you going to get to do it? Contractors?
It seems (and I don't know your contract) that if your MEC would just enforce the language you wouldn't have or need to make such a draconian suggestion. By the way, using IPs and Management pilots as "super reserves" isn't right either.
Working training is a two edged sword. It has its benefits but it also keeps you away from what you dreamed of as a kid...flying the jet.
It seems (and I don't know your contract) that if your MEC would just enforce the language you wouldn't have or need to make such a draconian suggestion. By the way, using IPs and Management pilots as "super reserves" isn't right either.
Working training is a two edged sword. It has its benefits but it also keeps you away from what you dreamed of as a kid...flying the jet.
If he is referring to having ALPA volunteers serving as instructors, thats another thing. Any rule which would limit/prohibit a good volunteer from joining an ALPA committee, to serve pilots on their off time, just because they were an instructor, is silly. The inverse is true as well; ALPA volunteers are pro pilot; having a motivated pro pilot guy in training is a great thing.
The solution to this isn’t complex and it appears already to be in the works. It’s clear the training department was pulling trips for training that the check airman wanted to be pulled. Having management pull the trips the guys wanted isn’t a bad thing, it’s a good thing they work with the instructors, lets just call it misguided.
All sides seem to be open to finding a solution that’s, “fair,” and respects line seniority. So I’m willing to wait and see what they come up with. But let’s not get it confused, having ALPA volunteers in our training department is a great thing and only helps the influence this pilot group can have in our training and checking
#26
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Position: CA: A321/A320/A319
Posts: 96
The company can withhold an additional 3% of scheduled flying for IOE/OE 25.B.1. It doesn’t say what type of trips.
So I’ll ask again. Is the flying not being withheld before the navblue pbs bid and your trips are being denied in your bid because they are going to training, or do the trips not exist in the navblue pairing packet because they were withheld for training?
If they were withheld prior to navblue it’s completely legal per the contract and is not new. The company can withhold whatever 5% and another 3% of flying for IOE/OE that they want. This is so that the check airman don’t bid regular lines and then the company has to buy the FO off everyone of their trips. Sure would be nice but that is something we never had here at Spirit at least since I’ve been here.
If you want to stipulate what type of flying the company can withhold in their 5+3% withholding then we need to negotiate that because it’s certainly not in the language now.
I feel the pain and I’ve always thought check airmen should bid in the regular bid and FOs get bought off to add the pilot doing IOE/OE. Put that in the bucket of priorities that’s filling up quick. I’m all for complaining but you sound like you are complaining about something happening that isn’t legal which to my knowledge isn’t the case but I could be wrong.
So I’ll ask again. Is the flying not being withheld before the navblue pbs bid and your trips are being denied in your bid because they are going to training, or do the trips not exist in the navblue pairing packet because they were withheld for training?
If they were withheld prior to navblue it’s completely legal per the contract and is not new. The company can withhold whatever 5% and another 3% of flying for IOE/OE that they want. This is so that the check airman don’t bid regular lines and then the company has to buy the FO off everyone of their trips. Sure would be nice but that is something we never had here at Spirit at least since I’ve been here.
If you want to stipulate what type of flying the company can withhold in their 5+3% withholding then we need to negotiate that because it’s certainly not in the language now.
I feel the pain and I’ve always thought check airmen should bid in the regular bid and FOs get bought off to add the pilot doing IOE/OE. Put that in the bucket of priorities that’s filling up quick. I’m all for complaining but you sound like you are complaining about something happening that isn’t legal which to my knowledge isn’t the case but I could be wrong.
The company isn’t randomly pulling the trips, they wait for the check airmen to tell them and that has been verified by again our 77 CA REP
#27
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Position: CA: A321/A320/A319
Posts: 96
#28
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Position: CA: A321/A320/A319
Posts: 96
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,425
Have you read the section I pointed out earlier??? Yes I understand up to 8 percent total trips, after talking to the 77 CA REP, he has in writing about check airmen basically telling the training scheduler what trips they want to work.. I will say it again the check airmen are telling the training scheduler what trips they want to work.
The company isn’t randomly pulling the trips, they wait for the check airmen to tell them and that has been verified by again our 77 CA REP
The company isn’t randomly pulling the trips, they wait for the check airmen to tell them and that has been verified by again our 77 CA REP
That said, all turns for a new student is a waste of time. They really should see a variety and experience as much of the operation as possible.
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,267
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post