Iah 787
09-16-2012, 03:56 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Originally Posted by oldmako
Thanks Sled. You get it.
How about adding to your list the constant picking up of OT at 150% pay? How about flying the trash? Etc etc etc?
How about adding to your list the constant picking up of OT at 150% pay? How about flying the trash? Etc etc etc?
Sled
09-16-2012, 04:00 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,575
Originally Posted by jsled
junior man, calling for a guideman, fueler, catering, shutting down the apu, ch 9, saving gas, answering your phone, waiving your contract, not calling in fatiqued, not calling in sick.
SLed
SLed
09-16-2012, 04:29 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Originally Posted by Ottopilot
Did the IAH 787 base pre-date the TPA? CAL had plans and bases planned a long time ago, but was delayed by Boeing? Just asking, I don't know.
09-16-2012, 04:36 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,575
Originally Posted by APC225
The IAH 787 base first showed up in a system bid on Sept 2, 2010.
09-16-2012, 04:42 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,253
Originally Posted by Regularguy
Intrepid:
"Company lawyers will cut this one to pieces in one hearing. I guarantee you there is more then enough legalize in countless documents that torpedo this grievance."
I guess I don't get your statement at all. Who cares anything about the quality of the Company Lawyers or even the chance of winning the grievance? This is about loading your gun with the ammo you have left and making a point. It's statements like yours and the associated attitudes why the CAL Management has done basically anything they want over the years.
If the contract/TPA says no 787 in IAH then stick to it, simple.
"Company lawyers will cut this one to pieces in one hearing. I guarantee you there is more then enough legalize in countless documents that torpedo this grievance."
I guess I don't get your statement at all. Who cares anything about the quality of the Company Lawyers or even the chance of winning the grievance? This is about loading your gun with the ammo you have left and making a point. It's statements like yours and the associated attitudes why the CAL Management has done basically anything they want over the years.
If the contract/TPA says no 787 in IAH then stick to it, simple.
Knock yourselves out on this one. Sorry I'm cynical that you guys think the company doesn't have their cornhole covered when it comes to a IAH 787 base that has been planned for 5 years. I much more concerned with the upcoming propaganda campaign Lee Moak's ALPA boys are going to deploy on us when this crud of a TA passes the MEC's.
09-16-2012, 05:17 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Originally Posted by jsled
Or writing stuff up "enroute". Sorry, if the f/a says there is a qtr turn loose in the first class galley 5 min before dept....that's a write up. DSM has an FBO on the field. They will coordinate with TOMC and fix it for you...eventually.
Sled
Sled
09-16-2012, 06:10 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Guppy Capt.
Posts: 1,887
Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
I dunno bout that one. I'm still studying the FOM to see if we are allowed to carry maintenance discrepancies. Will report back when I find an answer.
If it's broke, you write it up. If it can be deferred, great, if not FIX IT!!!
09-17-2012, 02:52 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
There must new a new exemption. I hear flight attendants say they don't want to take a delay for cabin maintenance items. Some pilots don't want to write up items and justify their actions by diminishing the value of the discrepancy.
I hear it so much, there just has to be an exemption. So, I keep studying the FOM in search of that magic authority. Hopefully, United will load the fancy new ipad with a high quality search engine to ease my years in search of knowledge.
I hear it so much, there just has to be an exemption. So, I keep studying the FOM in search of that magic authority. Hopefully, United will load the fancy new ipad with a high quality search engine to ease my years in search of knowledge.
09-17-2012, 04:36 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Left seat
Posts: 206
I don't know about you, but the FAA I work under says that any and all discrepancies must be written up at the time of discovery. I don't work for Unical, but one of our guys recently got a letter of correction for carrying a known discrepancy back to base... CYA
09-17-2012, 05:44 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: 737 CAPT
Posts: 1,882
Originally Posted by jsled
I have had some CAL guys on the line ask about the UAL grievance filed on the CAL 787 IAH Base. Well, here is the TPA. Pretty clear, eh? Management does not honor their agreements.
SLed
4-D. Domiciles. Neither Continental nor United will create or operate a new domicile, or add a new equipment type to an existing domicile, within one hundred fifty (150) miles of the other’s existing domicile, except that Continental may operate its B-787 aircraft using the EWR Base and/or may create an LAX B-737 Base for non-stop flying between LAX or its Co-terminal airports (i.e. ONT, BUR and SNA) and Hawaii or Continental hubs. Such LAX B-737 Base will notserve city pairs from LAX or its Co-terminal airports that do not have Continental service from those airports on the date of this Transition and Process Agreement.
There shall be no reduction in the number of Pilots assigned to the United LAX domicile as a result of opening a Continental Base.
SLed
4-D. Domiciles. Neither Continental nor United will create or operate a new domicile, or add a new equipment type to an existing domicile, within one hundred fifty (150) miles of the other’s existing domicile, except that Continental may operate its B-787 aircraft using the EWR Base and/or may create an LAX B-737 Base for non-stop flying between LAX or its Co-terminal airports (i.e. ONT, BUR and SNA) and Hawaii or Continental hubs. Such LAX B-737 Base will notserve city pairs from LAX or its Co-terminal airports that do not have Continental service from those airports on the date of this Transition and Process Agreement.
There shall be no reduction in the number of Pilots assigned to the United LAX domicile as a result of opening a Continental Base.
This has to do with protection of each others bases/domiciles at the time this was drafted. Reread the first part:
Neither Continental nor United will create or operate a new domicile, or add a new equipment type to an existing domicile, within one hundred fifty (150) miles of the other’s existing domicile...
That part specifies what would happen (at that time) to existing domiciles within 150 miles of each other NOT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM. That is why there is a specific mileage stated. IAH did not, at that time, reside within 150 miles of any UAL domicile. United could have also announced new equipment and flying at ORD or IAD for example under the verbiage of this agreement. An exemption was negotiated for EWR 787 and LAX 737 because those were already being contemplated at that time by the company and were within the range of UAL NYC and UAL LAX bases. Whatever happened with IAH didn't apply because of the mileage language and because UAL did not have a base in IAH.
The original T&PA did not restrict the 787 solely to EWR as some are claiming on here. It only allowed an exemption because it was so close to the UAL base.
The extension of the T&PA allowed for the opening of other bases, equipment flying on both sides and the language was changed to reflect that. IAH Airbus and 756 flying for L-UAL and 737 bases in ORD/DEN for L-CAL. Without that language change, none of these would have been allowed.
No conspiracy at all. The language is quite clear and this is exactly how it was explained in local council meetings regarding the original T&PA. More grievances to delay the JCBA is just what we need.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
