Displacement award published
05-24-2020 | 05:38 PM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,599
Likes: 205
From: 787
I'd also like to know if they're just putting through short courses or if they've also got long courses mixed in.
I've got one more displacement to go and would like to know if I can stall for a while longer by going to a long course or just roll the bones and take the short course. (I suspect long course is the better option)
I've got one more displacement to go and would like to know if I can stall for a while longer by going to a long course or just roll the bones and take the short course. (I suspect long course is the better option)
05-24-2020 | 06:05 PM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,213
Likes: 14
From: guppy CA
"However, we will deviate from inverse seniority order if there is a business reason for doing so. Examples include:
- a pilot is NQ on his old equipment
- to fill open training slots for example, a qual slot is open but the junior pilot needs an RQ2
- we expect a more junior pilot to be displaced in a subsequent displacement bid"
- a pilot is NQ on his old equipment
- to fill open training slots for example, a qual slot is open but the junior pilot needs an RQ2
- we expect a more junior pilot to be displaced in a subsequent displacement bid"
The above gives the company the ability to not train anyone furloughed in the first cut. And even a second cut if they've got that already mapped out.
05-24-2020 | 06:23 PM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,213
Likes: 14
From: guppy CA
RQ1 = those whose CQ have expired 1 day to 3 months
RQ2 = those whose CQ have expired >3 months to 24 months
RQ3 = those whose CQ have expired >24 months to 60 months
Full course for those whose CQ has expired >60 months or have never been on the aircraft
For those currently in the left seat and going to the right seat, would they get the RQ1, RQ2, or some other course?
05-24-2020 | 06:39 PM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,599
Likes: 205
From: 787
OK, just to refresh myself:
RQ1 = those whose CQ have expired 1 day to 3 months
RQ2 = those whose CQ have expired >3 months to 24 months
RQ3 = those whose CQ have expired >24 months to 60 months
Full course for those whose CQ has expired >60 months or have never been on the aircraft
For those currently in the left seat and going to the right seat, would they get the RQ1, RQ2, or some other course?
RQ1 = those whose CQ have expired 1 day to 3 months
RQ2 = those whose CQ have expired >3 months to 24 months
RQ3 = those whose CQ have expired >24 months to 60 months
Full course for those whose CQ has expired >60 months or have never been on the aircraft
For those currently in the left seat and going to the right seat, would they get the RQ1, RQ2, or some other course?
it will explain everything so much better than I can......some pilots will only need an LDRQ and their stripe ripped off.
our epic movement over the last few years has made this displacement very easy for the company unfortunately........much easier than I ever could have imagined and much easier than I portrayed on here.....I was wrong.
05-24-2020 | 07:05 PM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,042
Likes: 47
From: 767/757 CA
im doing the full course... spoke with a couple other buddies with same seniority range and also assigned full courses in the airbus mid June. They only have 6 Airbus sims... 10 training days of sims for the full course... sprinkle in some RQ 2/3 short courses and they can train probably 60-70 crews a month is my guess.
05-24-2020 | 07:10 PM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,213
Likes: 14
From: guppy CA
Table 3 is incorrect.
For pilot not currently qualified, it states RQ2 or RQ3. It should state: RQ2, RQ3, or Qualification Course.
I haven't flown the guppy for 7 1/2 years. No way would they get away with RQ3 for me since I'm past 60 months since CQ expiration.
05-24-2020 | 07:15 PM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,599
Likes: 205
From: 787
Thanks; saw the flowchart.
Table 3 is incorrect.
For pilot not currently qualified, it states RQ2 or RQ3. It should state: RQ2, RQ3, or Qualification Course.
I haven't flown the guppy for 7 1/2 years. No way would they get away with RQ3 for me since I'm past 60 months since CQ expiration.
Table 3 is incorrect.
For pilot not currently qualified, it states RQ2 or RQ3. It should state: RQ2, RQ3, or Qualification Course.
I haven't flown the guppy for 7 1/2 years. No way would they get away with RQ3 for me since I'm past 60 months since CQ expiration.
05-24-2020 | 09:42 PM
#70
Banned
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 657
Likes: 0
From: B-737 Captain
Guess we will agree to disagree.
I have a bunch the old Vacancy Bids and the Min/Max's are a pretty good target of planned flying for the future.
While I get that a Displacement Bid Min/Max is basically going the opposite way, there still has to be a rhyme or reason for their numbers.
Are they planing 5 LHR flights in March or are they planing 7? Are we going to be flying into MCO? RSW? MIA or not?
The frustrating thing is that it seems the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
We are parking (Short term and Long term) the 757 fleet, the 767 fleet.. not flying in May.
A few days later.. CCS msg that there will be flying in May (LOL).
Almost every day I get Open Pairing Alerts for EWR756 flying!
Keep in mind, just last week on an investor call a comment was made about removing 6 seats out of the 76 RJ's to comply with scope/furlough provisions. Yet then on another interview we hear about United putting bigger aircraft on routes to better social distance AND that we are (for the time being) aiming for a load of 70%.
So which is it.. we are taking a small aircraft and making it more dense and uneconomical or we are up gauging our routes?
IF the Min/Max's are useless, then why publish them?
If they are being published to abide by the contract, shouldn't they have useful information in them?
I do agree with your statement about the next DB. I expect the number of displacement will be less than the current 4148. Hell, 36 pilots are suppose to retire in July. There is also word that a small number of LCAL pilots have also put their paperwork in to retire due to the Continental frozen A Plan.
I'm hoping to see a displacement number somewhere in the mid to high 3000's. Hopefully.
Always
Motch
I have a bunch the old Vacancy Bids and the Min/Max's are a pretty good target of planned flying for the future.
While I get that a Displacement Bid Min/Max is basically going the opposite way, there still has to be a rhyme or reason for their numbers.
Are they planing 5 LHR flights in March or are they planing 7? Are we going to be flying into MCO? RSW? MIA or not?
The frustrating thing is that it seems the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
We are parking (Short term and Long term) the 757 fleet, the 767 fleet.. not flying in May.
A few days later.. CCS msg that there will be flying in May (LOL).
Almost every day I get Open Pairing Alerts for EWR756 flying!
Keep in mind, just last week on an investor call a comment was made about removing 6 seats out of the 76 RJ's to comply with scope/furlough provisions. Yet then on another interview we hear about United putting bigger aircraft on routes to better social distance AND that we are (for the time being) aiming for a load of 70%.
So which is it.. we are taking a small aircraft and making it more dense and uneconomical or we are up gauging our routes?
IF the Min/Max's are useless, then why publish them?
If they are being published to abide by the contract, shouldn't they have useful information in them?
I do agree with your statement about the next DB. I expect the number of displacement will be less than the current 4148. Hell, 36 pilots are suppose to retire in July. There is also word that a small number of LCAL pilots have also put their paperwork in to retire due to the Continental frozen A Plan.
I'm hoping to see a displacement number somewhere in the mid to high 3000's. Hopefully.
Always
Motch
The min/max number in displacements is simple math. The difference between the number of pilots before the displacement minus the number being displaced equals the min/max number. It does not equal the planned headcount for that category. That's because Carlson is over-bumping to account for pilots bumping in. Just take a look at the May 8th crew resources update. SFO 787 FO tentative headcount target...270, but the min/max is 195. SFO 777 FO tentative headcount target 322, but the min/max is 233. The min/max is meaningless unless you do percentage bidding. And the SSC cautions against using percentage bidding because it is based on the min number.... which will not likely be close to the actual number in the category.
Last edited by guppie; 05-24-2020 at 10:00 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
