Originally Posted by C11DCA (Post 2328233)

Others have already pointed out your lack of knowledge of the history and backstories of the events you claim are examples of Democratic indifference towards airlines and unions.

Regarding DC-Dubai, the awarding of the government flying to JetBlue/Emirates followed the law/regulations. The law/regulations that the majors had previously lobbied to have adjusted to include their codeshare/alliance partners. It was a competitive bid and Jetblue was selected. It had a cheaper airfare and its overall application was scored higher then UAL's. Don't you want your government to spend your tax dollars wisely? ;)

Here is the Protest denial:

U.S. GAO - United Airlines, Inc.

How come no one complains that UAL won the award for ATL-FRA? UAL certainly doesn't fly that route with its own metal, it is flown on Lufthansa.

https://cpsearch.fas.gsa.gov/cpsearc...r=Search+FY+17

And while losing the GSA award on that route hurt the bottom line of UAL, I'm not convinced it wouldn't have dropped it anyways. From a war time, monopoly route that made $$$ to a route where the war ended and thus government travel was down and now you also had three other carriers flying that market (the ME3).

Originally Posted by rp2pilot (Post 2328296)

Ask a JetBlue ALPA member if they support codeshare with Emirates .. they'll either be truthful and say yes, or lie and say no. They WANT the ME codeshares since they lack the international feed. Therein lies the problem with lobbying this issue. Ask Boeing Union members if they want NAI .. more 787's, more jobs, no brainer. Ask Delta if they want ATC modernization for better slot management in the Northeast. They don't care about that so much .. it'd help United more than them and they don't want that.

This is the problem with pseudo-deregulation. Everyone still has to rely on their man in Washington to get an advantage. That's great until someone else presents a better bargain to the man in Washington. What can you do at that point, complain that your competitors' payoffs were larger than yours?

Originally Posted by C11DCA (Post 2328521)

Agree. At the end of the day we are united as pilots until it affects our individual airlines either positively or negatively.

And it happens within a specific airlines pilot groups as well, especially when it's contract time. "I want pay...I want work rules....the contract prevents me from earning more....the contract saves my job.....". See the mini ****storm that just happened on the widebodies, when the SSC determined they no longer had to grant a contractual waiver in order to build PBS lines. Pilots complaining that ALPA was forcing a 10+% paycut because instead of 90 hours, they could only be awarded a max of 80 per the contract. We are our own enemy. :rolleyes:

Herding cats is easier then getting pilots to agree on something, let alone pilots at competing carriers.

Originally Posted by blizzue (Post 2332130)

When should we expect the final results?

Originally Posted by JoePatroni (Post 2328658)

It wasn't as much about pay as it was days off. Lowering the line value forced lower time trips onto all the lines (due to the ultra long flights on that fleet) resulting in more days at work for less pay for most senior people.

Originally Posted by C11DCA (Post 2333050)

Did you see the thread on the other forum (not the scab one) titled something like "forced to take a paycut!"? :rolleyes:

I can accept your observation on days worked as one of the outcomes from the lack of a waiver, for some pilots. However, the fact still remains that the waiver was no longer needed and the contractual parameters are being followed. Does that mean it's a change for some? No doubt, but having the company adhere to the contract is the desired goal right?

If anything it shows how forked up the company has been in its fleet and marketing planning for these past 5 years.

Originally Posted by JoePatroni (Post 2333625)

Would you not classify working more days for less pay as a "pay cut?"

The EWR 777 base has always been a special animal due to the amount of ultra-long haul trips. The company has been trying for a long time to somehow reduce the amount of guys going to the sim for landings, it looks like they finally accomplished it by throwing in just enough domestic flying to dilute the solution and push flying trips farther down the list.

Originally Posted by C11DCA (Post 2333762)

Paychecks go up and down. All a pilot is guaranteed though is 73/75 hours and 12 days off. Those that were able to get a 90 hours PBS build should be thankful that they were able to due to the waiver. But flying changes, both the actual routes or trip mixes. Welcome to what other fleets/bases have been experiencing for a while. Since when is following the contract a bad thing?

For CAL maybe EWR 777 was special but the pilots in SFO/LAX/ORD/IAD are well familiar with ultra long haul flights. And have been in some cases for decades. ;)

I'm sure the company converted the non Hawaiian three class A models to the Hawaiian configuration just to lessen the amount of landings classes that EWR f/o's were going to. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by JoePatroni (Post 2334608)

Forever the only "short" flight the 777 did out of EWR was LHR and occasionally FRA or BRU. The next shortest trip was TLV at 22:25. After that NRT was 27:00, PVG 29:00, DEL 29:00, BOM and HKG at 31:00. Obviously the solution to make lines was severely limited, which resulted in a steady stream of landings classes year round. I never said anything about converting "A" models, although flying three class airplanes to Hawaii nowadays makes no sense, but I know for a fact the company has been actively looking to reduce landings classes in order to free up sim time. You obviously disagree but it's odd that there was "just enough" domestic flying added to change the solution.

Originally Posted by JoePatroni (Post 2334608)

Forever the only "short" flight the 777 did out of EWR was LHR and occasionally FRA or BRU. The next shortest trip was TLV at 22:25. After that NRT was 27:00, PVG 29:00, DEL 29:00, BOM and HKG at 31:00. Obviously the solution to make lines was severely limited, which resulted in a steady stream of landings classes year round. I never said anything about converting "A" models, although flying three class airplanes to Hawaii nowadays makes no sense, but I know for a fact the company has been actively looking to reduce landings classes in order to free up sim time. You obviously disagree but it's odd that there was "just enough" domestic flying added to change the solution.