Seniority?
02-19-2012 | 10:49 AM
#171
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
You bet.
He has a bunk. There is also an open seat in Businessfirst. That seat, on the 777 is often "reserved" for a pilot who, on a 14 hour flight wants to read or relax and watch a movie during his/her 6.5 hour break. It is not a guarantee, more of a courtesy if and only if there is an open seat. Some contracts do allow for a rest seat along with the bunk. Not at CAL.
About 30-40 minutes out of EWR, going to Delhi/Mumbai/NRT/PEK etc, the 2 relief first officers will leave the cockpit to take "rest". It is a nice perk to have somewhere to wind down before crawling into the bunk if you know you are not going to be able to fall asleep right away. Most FA's will let the crew know if and where a seat is located for this purpose.
02-19-2012 | 10:51 AM
#172
On Reserve
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
You bet.
He has a bunk. There is also an open seat in Businessfirst. That seat, on the 777 is often "reserved" for a pilot who, on a 14 hour flight wants to read or relax and watch a movie during his/her 6.5 hour break. It is not a guarantee, more of a courtesy if and only if there is an open seat. Some contracts do allow for a rest seat along with the bunk. Not at CAL.
About 30-40 minutes out of EWR, going to Delhi/Mumbai/NRT/PEK etc, the 2 relief first officers will leave the cockpit to take "rest". It is a nice perk to have somewhere to wind down before crawling into the bunk if you know you are not going to be able to fall asleep right away. Most FA's will let the crew know if and where a seat is located for this purpose.
He has a bunk. There is also an open seat in Businessfirst. That seat, on the 777 is often "reserved" for a pilot who, on a 14 hour flight wants to read or relax and watch a movie during his/her 6.5 hour break. It is not a guarantee, more of a courtesy if and only if there is an open seat. Some contracts do allow for a rest seat along with the bunk. Not at CAL.
About 30-40 minutes out of EWR, going to Delhi/Mumbai/NRT/PEK etc, the 2 relief first officers will leave the cockpit to take "rest". It is a nice perk to have somewhere to wind down before crawling into the bunk if you know you are not going to be able to fall asleep right away. Most FA's will let the crew know if and where a seat is located for this purpose.
02-19-2012 | 10:56 AM
#173
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,086
Likes: 0
From: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Correct.....The term "Dedicated Crew Rest Area".
As I expressed earlier, the segregated BUNK area constitutes/complies with the term of Dedicated Crew Rest. That term has nothing to do with "roping off" 1 or 2 Business First seats (Lay-flat beds or not) on flights blocked for >12 hours. If those "roped off" BizFirst seats are there in addition to the Bunk, great!
Without the Dedicated Crew Rest Area, that particular airframe (IE- the B777's w/o BUNKS) is relegated to flight segments of 12 Hours or less. It has nothing to do with being a CBA thing, it's mandated per the FAA as things presently stand (barring any change in the future by the purposed changes regarding the Flight Time Duty Regs).
Without the Dedicated Crew Rest Area, that particular airframe (IE- the B777's w/o BUNKS) is relegated to flight segments of 12 Hours or less. It has nothing to do with being a CBA thing, it's mandated per the FAA as things presently stand (barring any change in the future by the purposed changes regarding the Flight Time Duty Regs).
02-19-2012 | 11:45 AM
#174
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 0
From: A320 Cap
Flights scheduled over 12 hours require a bunk. I believe some of the s-UAL 777's are operating certain routes on these "domestic" 777's under an agreement with the company and using 1st class seats for rest on flights over 8 hours but less than 12. s-CAL 777's have bunks but the FA's will also reserve an open businessfirst seat(lie flat) for the pilots to watch movies and read etc. if they don't want to(or cannot) sleep in the dark bunk. Was this a CAL or UAL 777?
On a side note... I thought that I just read something saying that the last UAL bird in the old Battleship Grey colors had gone in to be painted. The jet last night was still wearing them, so obviously I must have read it wrong. Had the new interior, but the old old paint
02-19-2012 | 11:48 AM
#175
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 0
From: A320 Cap
Correct.....The term "Dedicated Crew Rest Area".
As I expressed earlier, the segregated BUNK area constitutes/complies with the term of Dedicated Crew Rest. That term has nothing to do with "roping off" 1 or 2 Business First seats (Lay-flat beds or not) on flights blocked for >12 hours. If those "roped off" BizFirst seats are there in addition to the Bunk, great!
Without the Dedicated Crew Rest Area, that particular airframe (IE- the B777's w/o BUNKS) is relegated to flight segments of 12 Hours or less. It has nothing to do with being a CBA thing, it's mandated per the FAA as things presently stand (barring any change in the future by the purposed changes regarding the Flight Time Duty Regs).
As I expressed earlier, the segregated BUNK area constitutes/complies with the term of Dedicated Crew Rest. That term has nothing to do with "roping off" 1 or 2 Business First seats (Lay-flat beds or not) on flights blocked for >12 hours. If those "roped off" BizFirst seats are there in addition to the Bunk, great!
Without the Dedicated Crew Rest Area, that particular airframe (IE- the B777's w/o BUNKS) is relegated to flight segments of 12 Hours or less. It has nothing to do with being a CBA thing, it's mandated per the FAA as things presently stand (barring any change in the future by the purposed changes regarding the Flight Time Duty Regs).
02-19-2012 | 01:50 PM
#176
Banned
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
From: IAH 737 CA
No.
I have zero interest in getting involved in this totally worthless "my toy is bigger than your toy" discussion. Just to correct this observation: UAL's widebody's are all ETOPS certified (not that it matters, really). Not all the 757's are ETOPS, but they are not "widebody" by definition
I have zero interest in getting involved in this totally worthless "my toy is bigger than your toy" discussion. Just to correct this observation: UAL's widebody's are all ETOPS certified (not that it matters, really). Not all the 757's are ETOPS, but they are not "widebody" by definition
Thanks for the clarification.
02-19-2012 | 02:00 PM
#177
Banned
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
From: IAH 737 CA
Bingo, and the group you and I find us in have been down this road far too many times my friend.
The CAL side here on the forum really doesn't understand the history or mindset of what is left of the 2172/1473 group. I for one, will actively participate in any litigation action towards ALPA if we find ourselves STAPLED. Thats not a beef against the CAL pilots, but they pay dues into ALPA just as much.
So why even bring this up here? Well, yes, an arbitrator will make a binding decision. However, it cannot bind what both sides have already mutually agreed upon is in the best interest of all parties. A CAL MEC that does not acknowledge that a 1999 UAL type not be placed behind a 2007 CAL type ala staple job, for example, in an attempt to grab as much for its own group as possible, is just as GUILTY as a UAL MEC which refuses to defend the junior with as much fervor and skill as it would a senior 747 captain. This is exactly what the ALPA Merger Policy is supposed to safe guard against. Unfortunately, as Coto has said, we as a union have a very poor track record of corporately defending all of its constituents. This is not a slam against the average line pilot, except for their silence in speaking out, especially when it might mean that they not gain everything in which they feel individually entitled to.
The best outcome is one in which all parties win, or lose the least. You would think we as a union would be the first to grasp that versus standing in front of an arbitration panel in heavily entrenched positions.
KC
The CAL side here on the forum really doesn't understand the history or mindset of what is left of the 2172/1473 group. I for one, will actively participate in any litigation action towards ALPA if we find ourselves STAPLED. Thats not a beef against the CAL pilots, but they pay dues into ALPA just as much.
So why even bring this up here? Well, yes, an arbitrator will make a binding decision. However, it cannot bind what both sides have already mutually agreed upon is in the best interest of all parties. A CAL MEC that does not acknowledge that a 1999 UAL type not be placed behind a 2007 CAL type ala staple job, for example, in an attempt to grab as much for its own group as possible, is just as GUILTY as a UAL MEC which refuses to defend the junior with as much fervor and skill as it would a senior 747 captain. This is exactly what the ALPA Merger Policy is supposed to safe guard against. Unfortunately, as Coto has said, we as a union have a very poor track record of corporately defending all of its constituents. This is not a slam against the average line pilot, except for their silence in speaking out, especially when it might mean that they not gain everything in which they feel individually entitled to.
The best outcome is one in which all parties win, or lose the least. You would think we as a union would be the first to grasp that versus standing in front of an arbitration panel in heavily entrenched positions.
KC
But in the same breath do you also find it acceptable for a 1999 UAL hire with 10 years of furlough to be placed in front of a 2005 hire that has been a 737 captain at CAL?
I'm not advocating a staple and I don't think most CAL pilots want a senority grab. We want the same thing most UAL pilots want; a fair and equitable integration. Just what that is, remains with the MC's and the arbitrator.
Last edited by EWR73FO; 02-20-2012 at 03:35 AM.
02-19-2012 | 03:38 PM
#178
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 709
Likes: 6
From: 320 Captain
You are right, I don't have the numbers in front of me. My sources are the VP of the IAH hub and the chief pilot and director of operations(both of whom have been out on Guam for years and are worried about our market share if this continues) in Guam. I do not have access to the financial numbers but I do have access to the operational numbers(load factor/completion factor/departure within 00 minutes/arrival within 14 etc). I'm not trying to pick a fight here. You are probably correct in that we rarely have to make a decision to fly with something deferred in that our fleet of widebody aircraft and our narrowbodies are young in comparison.
And from looking at Gum and Lim since November, the operational stats don't look too abnormal with regards to completion percentage/ on time:14 as compared to the system as a whole.
Lim in November was 96.7%, December was bad at only a 93.5% completion. January was 100%, and Feb is 100% so far
But Guam has been 100% for November , 95% for December, 98% for Jan, 98% so far in Feb.
Now if you said customers were upset due to the first class offering on the domestic 767, i would agree.
DC
02-19-2012 | 04:02 PM
#179
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
That's why the 767-300's are needed in EWR. Not to make light of the above situation you accurately pointed out but this year was the worse on record for our 757's. Now i'm going to point out something you are not going to like at all.
Since we have been putting the "right aircraft in the right market" for almost a year now, let's review what the almighty s-UAL widebodies have done for business.
1. IAH-LIM needed the extra lift the 767-300 can provide. The reliability of that flight has been so poor that we have lost numerous corporate accounts to AA and DAL. The VP of the IAH hub personally told me that she has received several calls from corporate travel offices from Houston companies telling her that her clients would rather fly to DFW and down to LIM than fly "us" these days. We turned away a lot of money in cargo when we used our 757's on the IAH-LIM route but we supposedly LOSING MONEY now with the aircraft that was supposed to allow us to INCREASE PROFITS exponentially.
2. The 777 that replaced our 767-400 on the HNL-GUM-NRT-GUM segment has cancelled so much that passengers are willingly going over to DAL that now flies widebodies on the GUM-NRT segment and is stepping up operations out of GUM and really giving us a run for our money. The on-time percentage of the 777 flying out of GUM has been cut in half. This is a market that we used to "own".
Now I don't know what the problems are with these aircraft in the two above mentioned markets but I do know that they are the right sized aircraft for the markets. Was it a mistake to place UAL aircraft on these once extremely profitable routes? Is it maintenance? I really don't know the answer.
I think in 2-5 years this airline has the ability to be a huge player in the world. I really hope we don't completely screw it up over the next 2 years with lawsuits etc. and allow Delta to thrive at our expense.
Since we have been putting the "right aircraft in the right market" for almost a year now, let's review what the almighty s-UAL widebodies have done for business.
1. IAH-LIM needed the extra lift the 767-300 can provide. The reliability of that flight has been so poor that we have lost numerous corporate accounts to AA and DAL. The VP of the IAH hub personally told me that she has received several calls from corporate travel offices from Houston companies telling her that her clients would rather fly to DFW and down to LIM than fly "us" these days. We turned away a lot of money in cargo when we used our 757's on the IAH-LIM route but we supposedly LOSING MONEY now with the aircraft that was supposed to allow us to INCREASE PROFITS exponentially.
2. The 777 that replaced our 767-400 on the HNL-GUM-NRT-GUM segment has cancelled so much that passengers are willingly going over to DAL that now flies widebodies on the GUM-NRT segment and is stepping up operations out of GUM and really giving us a run for our money. The on-time percentage of the 777 flying out of GUM has been cut in half. This is a market that we used to "own".
Now I don't know what the problems are with these aircraft in the two above mentioned markets but I do know that they are the right sized aircraft for the markets. Was it a mistake to place UAL aircraft on these once extremely profitable routes? Is it maintenance? I really don't know the answer.
I think in 2-5 years this airline has the ability to be a huge player in the world. I really hope we don't completely screw it up over the next 2 years with lawsuits etc. and allow Delta to thrive at our expense.
In the broader context of your post though, the next time you personally have the opportunity to put a particular type of equipment in a particular market, I'm certain that you won't hesitate to step up. Today however, that function is purposely left out of the pilots' hands and it's no secret. I'm sure you'll agree that UAL's management goal is for pilots to just show up, fly their trip and go home (good for some, not so good for others). There's no better example of how management wants very little influence coming from the brass hatters on how the company is run, as evident in their exclusion of Pilot SMEs in the integration of the airline. It's a tech company, remember? So consider this to be a full blown assault to render the pilot powerless by eradicating any shred of equal leadership by virtue of the experience they bring to the table (as in your case).
Your observations, however well intended, are a sore to management. Instead, well paid metric oriented/spreadsheet people, whose picture of the world is formed out of data streaming from a 21 inch screen, produces the ideas that promises great results while you witnessed otherwise. Inefficiency, incompetence, inconvenience(as in passengers)?? Who cares when they're still showing a huge profit.
I would think most pilots do appreciate the legit worries your sources feel. They (your sources) only need to move that apprehension further along and up the management tree because all that great fluff (painting airplanes, shifting metal, great route structure, whatever) won't blow until the other bottom line, well paid pilots with the decency of a respectable QOL, and the opportunity to enjoy it with "JOB PROTECTION," is factored into the metric.
Until then there is little else besides flying the contract, that should be done, and never forget that you are a pilot at a Fortune 100 company!!!
02-19-2012 | 04:10 PM
#180
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,213
Likes: 14
From: guppy CA
But in the same breath do you also find it acceptable for a 1999 with 10 years of furlough to be placed in front of a 2005 hire that has been a 737 captain at CAL?
I'm not advocating a staple and I don't think most CAL pilots want a senority grab. We want the same thing most UAL pilots want; a fair and equitable integration. Just what that is, remains with the MC's and the arbitrator.
I'm not advocating a staple and I don't think most CAL pilots want a senority grab. We want the same thing most UAL pilots want; a fair and equitable integration. Just what that is, remains with the MC's and the arbitrator.
I could make a very strong argument for a snapshot date being taken in 2008 based on Continental joining the Star alliance. As a result of DOJ's objections, LUAL dumped the 737 fleet. Will UALALPA's lawyer push for a snapshot date in 2008 based on CAL joining the Star alliance? I don't know but I bet he's thought about it.
In 2008, a 1999 hire had 3+ more years on property than a 2005 CAL hire. Just another perspective.
Fair and equitable is in the eye of the beholder. And it'll be decided by an arbitration panel, with each side's lawyers bringing forth their best arguments. LCAL has Katz; LUAL has Freund. Nothing that is said on these boards will change that.
Last edited by Andy; 02-19-2012 at 04:12 PM. Reason: I don't know how the smiley got to the top of the post; I must've had a fat finger.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
DLax85
Cargo
14
06-26-2008 03:26 PM
