![]() |
Union reps don’t seem too concerned about this stuff, so I wouldn’t expect anything to be done
|
Originally Posted by Popeye0537
(Post 3041172)
Boy, you sure do ***** A LOT!
So why are you so bitter, did you take the first available upgrade knowing that reserve sucks, or are you to junior to hold a line? I'm trying to understand your rational. Reserve sucks anywhere. |
Originally Posted by MCDUmanipulator
(Post 3040312)
I don’t think anyone probably took it to really help the company. People took it to have a whole month off work, while still having some income.
|
Originally Posted by Meep
(Post 3041168)
Agreed, they can’t have it both ways. The amount of people who won’t dequalify and want to take VIL will be quite small.
https://ops.group/blog/wp-content/up...ace-months.pdf |
Originally Posted by azboy
(Post 3041626)
I brought this up in a next thread, didn’t the FAA exempt the 90 day landing currency 121.439(a) in the list of exemption due to the covid19. Link to exemption:
https://ops.group/blog/wp-content/up...ace-months.pdf |
Originally Posted by sgt98c
(Post 3041628)
I may be wrong but that appears to have been filed on the behalf of Airlines for America, of which Spirit does not belong. So that may explain why we are not exempt.
“Because A4A is a trade association and not a certificate holder, it cannot be granted an exemption from FAA operating requirements. Accordingly, the FAA will grant the relief requested by A4A to its members and all part 119 certificate holders conducting training and qualification under part 121 when requested. To make this exemption effective, each affected certificate holder must submit to the FAA a request in the form of a Letter of Intent to use this exemption and affirm its intentions to comply with the conditions and limitations of this exemption.” So I guess Spirit just has to request the exemption. |
Per the releasing line holders without placing them on TAJ, that action was specifically requested of the company by our MEC Chairman according to email correspondence with my rep. So we, the union, are behind the line holders not being reassigned through TAJ to operate the new pairings.
|
Originally Posted by Flightcap
(Post 3042754)
Per the releasing line holders without placing them on TAJ, that action was specifically requested of the company by our MEC Chairman according to email correspondence with my rep. So we, the union, are behind the line holders not being reassigned through TAJ to operate the new pairings.
|
Originally Posted by symbian simian
(Post 3042934)
AFAIK, SWA with the same reschedule, decided to reassign trips in reverse seniority on "TAJ" days. I think it was financially irresponsible of the union to request above guarantee/line value pay for trips that could have been contractually signed out without extra pay.
I agree, but the union can ask all it wants, it’s up to the company to play along. Both are equally to blame IMO. |
Originally Posted by symbian simian
(Post 3042934)
AFAIK, SWA with the same reschedule, decided to reassign trips in reverse seniority on "TAJ" days. I think it was financially irresponsible of the union to request above guarantee/line value pay for trips that could have been contractually signed out without extra pay.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:30 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands