Search

Notices

Guppy SFO bids posted

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-12-2013 | 03:20 PM
  #61  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,083
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by tomgoodman
We also had:
L-1011 ... TenElephant
MD-88 ... Mad Dog
DC-9 ... Mad Puppy
MD-11 ... Mad Elephant
767 ... BiStar
A-310 ... ScareBus
727 ... Jurassic Jet, Steam Engine, 3-holer
Death Cruiser (10)
Diesel 9
Speed Bump (Classic 737s because they slowed everyone down)
Reply
Old 08-18-2013 | 02:35 PM
  #62  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
From: FO
Default

Can anyone explain the large number of 756 vacancies for FOs (EWR and IAH) on this bid? Are aircraft shuffling around from the UAL side to cause this? I wouldn't think that because the CA vacancies are disproportionate. Has there been some sort of announcement about augmented flying or something?
Reply
Old 08-18-2013 | 04:17 PM
  #63  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Default

I think the 756 flying is crap. I would be a full 10-15% higher in seniority in BES on the 756 but my schedule looks better on the 737 and the pay is virtually the same. That's in IAH. Plus on the snapshot that shows what you would hold a year from right now, a lot can change between now and one year, like an ISL. I'm not going to jump to a new plane and get seat locked prior to the isl only to find out that pre isl is 40% but post isl is 90% for BES.
Reply
Old 08-18-2013 | 04:24 PM
  #64  
Banned
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
From: next to chronic complainers...
Default

Originally Posted by beeker
I think the 756 flying is crap. I would be a full 10-15% higher in seniority in BES on the 756 but my schedule looks better on the 737 and the pay is virtually the same. That's in IAH. Plus on the snapshot that shows what you would hold a year from right now, a lot can change between now and one year, like an ISL. I'm not going to jump to a new plane and get seat locked prior to the isl only to find out that pre isl is 40% but post isl is 90% for BES.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this bid part of this year bid effective 02-2014, hence 14-02A?
Reply
Old 08-18-2013 | 04:25 PM
  #65  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
From: FO
Default

I can totally understand the uncertainty about SLI and not choosing to bid over to the airplane, but I guess what I'm wondering is was there any information posted anywhere explaining the huge vacancies for 756 FOs? It doesn't seem proportionate to the rest of the bid. The reasons given in the bid bulletin were retirements and unfilled vacancies from previous bids, but it sure seems like they heavily loaded the 756
Reply
Old 08-18-2013 | 05:47 PM
  #66  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by jetlink
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this bid part of this year bid effective 02-2014, hence 14-02A?
Well my smart answer is 02-2014 isn't this year, it's next year. I really didn't even think about when it was effective, it's just normally a year out. But the real point is that the 757 schedules are basically the same as the 737 schedules, but the 737 has more choices with scheduling, at basically the same pay. And no seat lock with the ISL over hanging. And the reason there are so many seats is because on the last bid, that had a lot of seats, none of them got filled and they rolled over to this bid plus whatever new seats were added.
Reply
Old 08-18-2013 | 06:53 PM
  #67  
APC225's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by mrmak2
I can totally understand the uncertainty about SLI and not choosing to bid over to the airplane, but I guess what I'm wondering is was there any information posted anywhere explaining the huge vacancies for 756 FOs? It doesn't seem proportionate to the rest of the bid. The reasons given in the bid bulletin were retirements and unfilled vacancies from previous bids, but it sure seems like they heavily loaded the 756
FAR 117 becomes effective on 4 Jan. There's an increase in augmented crews that is driven by this I believe.
Reply
Old 08-18-2013 | 08:02 PM
  #68  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
From: EWR B737FO
Default

Originally Posted by mrmak2
I can totally understand the uncertainty about SLI and not choosing to bid over to the airplane, but I guess what I'm wondering is was there any information posted anywhere explaining the huge vacancies for 756 FOs? It doesn't seem proportionate to the rest of the bid. The reasons given in the bid bulletin were retirements and unfilled vacancies from previous bids, but it sure seems like they heavily loaded the 756
CAL 756 almost exclusively fly international plus new FAR changes drive the vacancies. Most augmented crews are in EWR. Your last sentence is correct
Reply
Old 08-18-2013 | 08:09 PM
  #69  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
From: EWR B737FO
Default

Originally Posted by beeker
Well my smart answer is 02-2014 isn't this year, it's next year. I really didn't even think about when it was effective, it's just normally a year out. But the real point is that the 757 schedules are basically the same as the 737 schedules, but the 737 has more choices with scheduling, at basically the same pay. And no seat lock with the ISL over hanging. And the reason there are so many seats is because on the last bid, that had a lot of seats, none of them got filled and they rolled over to this bid plus whatever new seats were added.
Becker, I don't believe the CAL 757 and 737 are the same especially in EWR ( largest 757 base). Some domestic...but the type of flying and schedules are international, all nighters, one leg and sometimes augmented....pretty different overall.
Reply
Old 08-19-2013 | 03:11 PM
  #70  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,512
Likes: 0
From: 787 Captain
Default

Originally Posted by Slammer
CAL 756 almost exclusively fly international plus new FAR changes drive the vacancies. Most augmented crews are in EWR. Your last sentence is correct
They already knew about FAR 117 when 14-02 was originally published. Wouldn't the increased requirements have already been factored in?
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sunvox
United
175
07-21-2013 06:45 PM
LeeMat
United
217
02-06-2013 07:04 PM
BHopper88
Regional
18
08-06-2008 07:22 PM
ryane946
Major
2
01-10-2007 08:42 AM
ryane946
JetBlue
1
01-10-2007 06:27 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices