|
Originally Posted by APC225
(Post 1376353)
Was given the tour of the TMOC (mx). Shift supervisor (former CAL) said there were two eye-openers when they merged. One, LUAL pilots refused as many aircraft in two weeks as LCAL pilots refused in a year. It was a major shock. They dug into it and saw philosophical differences in the way mx treated write ups. LUAL's was keep ‘em flyin'. IOW, defer, defer, defer to MEL to limit. LCAL‘s was fix it ASAP to keep 'em flyin'. Both were valid but the LUAL method meant the LUAL pilot might have multiple MELs and rightfully refuse aircraft, while the LCAL pilot rarely had any MELs to consider at all therefore few refusals. It wasn't a matter of "low T" it was a matter of zero vs multiple MELs.
|
Originally Posted by APC225
(Post 1376353)
Was given the tour of the TMOC (mx). Shift supervisor (former CAL) said there were two eye-openers when they merged. One, LUAL pilots refused as many aircraft in two weeks as LCAL pilots refused in a year. It was a major shock. They dug into it and saw philosophical differences in the way mx treated write ups. LUAL's was keep ‘em flyin'. IOW, defer, defer, defer to MEL to limit. LCAL‘s was fix it ASAP to keep 'em flyin'. Both were valid but the LUAL method meant the LUAL pilot might have multiple MELs and rightfully refuse aircraft, while the LCAL pilot rarely had any MELs to consider at all therefore few refusals. It wasn't a matter of "low T" it was a matter of zero vs multiple MELs.
|
Question......kind of on topic....Would anybody here leave one of the other legacy carriers for UAL? UAL is hiring (probably for quite a while) and has growth airplanes arriving. If offered a job with UAL, commuting would become a non-issue. Seniority is a wash. I would hold the same seniority after just 4 months. Thoughts?
|
Originally Posted by APC225
(Post 1376353)
Was given the tour of the TMOC (mx). Shift supervisor (former CAL) said there were two eye-openers when they merged. One, LUAL pilots refused as many aircraft in two weeks as LCAL pilots refused in a year. It was a major shock. They dug into it and saw philosophical differences in the way mx treated write ups. LUAL's was keep ‘em flyin'. IOW, defer, defer, defer to MEL to limit. LCAL‘s was fix it ASAP to keep 'em flyin'. Both were valid but the LUAL method meant the LUAL pilot might have multiple MELs and rightfully refuse aircraft, while the LCAL pilot rarely had any MELs to consider at all therefore few refusals. It wasn't a matter of "low T" it was a matter of zero vs multiple MELs.
Seldom have I refused an airplane for one single maintenance issue but when they start to pile up it often forces me to refuse. And refusing is often the only way you can get something fixed. |
Originally Posted by Avgwhitemale
(Post 1376551)
Question......kind of on topic....Would anybody here leave one of the other legacy carriers for UAL? UAL is hiring (probably for quite a while) and has growth airplanes arriving. If offered a job with UAL, commuting would become a non-issue. Seniority is a wash. I would hold the same seniority after just 4 months. Thoughts?
That said, I would not bet my carreer on "growth" airplanes at UCH--at least not in the short term. Both sCAL and sUAL have fewer airframes than the day the merger was announced and last week our CEO told an investor conference that UCH's strategy is strict capacity discipline. The current hiring is a direct result of the new pilot contract, FAR 117, and retirements. Once the "bubble" of the first two is popped only retirements will remain to fuel hiring absent a change in corporate strategy IMHO, if seniority is a wash and QOL is improved it might be something to consider but I personally would only approach the issue very cautiously with both eyes wide open. |
Originally Posted by APC225
(Post 1376353)
Was given the tour of the TMOC (mx). Shift supervisor (former CAL) said there were two eye-openers when they merged. One, LUAL pilots refused as many aircraft in two weeks as LCAL pilots refused in a year. It was a major shock. They dug into it and saw philosophical differences in the way mx treated write ups. LUAL's was keep ‘em flyin'. IOW, defer, defer, defer to MEL to limit. LCAL‘s was fix it ASAP to keep 'em flyin'. Both were valid but the LUAL method meant the LUAL pilot might have multiple MELs and rightfully refuse aircraft, while the LCAL pilot rarely had any MELs to consider at all therefore few refusals. It wasn't a matter of "low T" it was a matter of zero vs multiple MELs.
|
MX personnel have always seemed to fix the problems that have come up. |
Originally Posted by EWRflyr
(Post 1376579)
Not knowing the L-UAL side, I would agree with this. Other than the occasional LiveTV video screen or LiveTV control buttons in the arm rest I can't remember the last MEL I've seen on an aircraft I've flown. Even if we've called prior to or during boarding about something, MX personnel have always seemed to fix the problems that have come up.
Lee |
Originally Posted by Airhoss
(Post 1376595)
That'll be a refreshing change!!
Scott |
Originally Posted by liquid
(Post 1375105)
You sure do know a lot about a company you've never worked for. What other gems should I know about Continental Airlines?
Research Joe, research.
Originally Posted by Sunvox
(Post 1375318)
I was told this by a standards captain for whom I had much respect, but clearly they were mistaken or even perhaps lying to make their point. In any case, I apologize sincerely to all the CAL pilots for the misinformation. I am glad that it was corrected quickly.
Joe Peck |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:03 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands