![]() |
Originally Posted by LAX Pilot
(Post 1492564)
You know what's funny? That we called SLI almost to the seniority number and none of the stupid LCAL arguments were given any weight. Like the "considered" means they can give it zero weight, etc.
We all know who the stooges are. Thank God most of them were placed junior to me in the SLI. |
Originally Posted by LAX Pilot
(Post 1492564)
You know what's funny? That we called SLI almost to the seniority number and none of the stupid LCAL arguments were given any weight. Like the "considered" means they can give it zero weight, etc.
We all know who the stooges are. Thank God most of them were placed junior to me in the SLI. |
Originally Posted by El Gwopo
(Post 1492748)
Just flew with one of those "stooges" today. 2005 hire...37 years old...left seat. He's not complaining. In fact, I've flown with a lot of them. :D
|
Originally Posted by El Gwopo
(Post 1492748)
Just flew with one of those "stooges" today. 2005 hire...37 years old...left seat. He's not complaining. In fact, I've flown with a lot of them. :D
Kills me when I see them strutting around... I was a 28 year old 747 f/O then a 31 year old 727 Captain. So, who cares? |
Originally Posted by Skyflyin
(Post 1491967)
That was too long birddog, and I'm tired of you guys crapping all over the CAL guys just for having a discussion so I'm not going to respond.
For a lot of the CAL guys the ISL has taken the last 3 or 4 years of advancement away from them and will lead to displacements, more training and pay cuts. I know you guys think that we should never have advanced in the first place, but let me ask you this. If you think we should have shared the advancements over the last 3 years, why do you think it's OK to take ALL the advancements over the last 3 or 4 years yourselves? You think I'm full of BS I'm sure, so here is a quote from our merger committee so you know I'm not the only one thinking this: "CAL pilots have returned to their seniority percentage from three years ago and the UAL pilots have gained virtually all of the block hour growth and fleet growth from the merger over the past three years." Like I said, were not going to convince each other of anything so lets give it a rest. Cue the "The arbs agreed with us, so we're right, nah nah nee nah nah" I don't want to take ALL the advancements for the last 3 years. I want the TPA, UPA, SFO MOU, and SLI A&O followed as they were written and intended. Remember, the SLI is from a October 2010 outlook. The 14-02 & 14-02A Bids wouldn't have existed then, the 14-02D bids shouldn't be created now. What the S-CAL Merger Committee is describing above is a Relative Seniority ISL award using an October 2010 snapshot. I'm not going to argue that's it's fair, but it is reasonable. It's also what every S-CAL 737 FO was preaching to me when I was jumpseating to work back in 2010 and 2011. Yes, we can rest because per the agreements the EKN panel still has jurisdiction over the issue of granting displacements. Dogg |
When I say "lateral" above, the Bid this pilot possessed on Bid 14-02A was 767 CAP IAH. They never received a TAB. Now they are showing 767 CAP EWR. I assume the new 767 CAP bid to EWR is an award from Bid 14-02D. You have to sift the combined domicile rosters on CCS to find these awards since they aren't published in one spot. Like the former S-CAL pilots now sporting 76T bids.
Dogg |
Originally Posted by Birddog
(Post 1493585)
Sorry for the lengthy reply. Just trying to cover every base. Also, sorry if you felt like I was "crapping" on you. I don't look at this as a CAL vs UAL issue. Granting these displacement rights affects ALL pilots. It appears a pilot in the high 7000's in seniority numbers received a 767 Captain award on the 14-02D bid, a lateral. That position is now unavailable to ALL pilots for some time who want adjust to a post-ISL landscape with a Vacancy bid.
I don't want to take ALL the advancements for the last 3 years. I want the TPA, UPA, SFO MOU, and SLI A&O followed as they were written and intended. Remember, the SLI is from a October 2010 outlook. The 14-02 & 14-02A Bids wouldn't have existed then, the 14-02D bids shouldn't be created now. What the S-CAL Merger Committee is describing above is a Relative Seniority ISL award using an October 2010 snapshot. I'm not going to argue that's it's fair, but it is reasonable. It's also what every S-CAL 737 FO was preaching to me when I was jumpseating to work back in 2010 and 2011. Yes, we can rest because per the agreements the EKN panel still has jurisdiction over the issue of granting displacements. Dogg I also don't think you were one of the ones "crapping" on me. We were having a reasonable discussion when others have to make it a us vs. them slugfest. That's the nature of the anonymous forum though and it goes with the territory. I can take it, but I will dish it out as well. Anyway, thanks for the reasonable replies. See you on the line. |
So where do you find the 14-02D awards? I'm not one of them, but I'd just like to see where people went.
|
Thanks Skyflyin, After reading that post a couple of my friends called me "long/winded" too:-)
Free Flyer, It's not worth the effort to find where the 14-02D awardees went. You find them on the domicile rosters under Future. Then you have see if their bid was on 14-02 or 14-02A. Then you have to cross reference all the TAB's from April forward to see if they were awarded a training date. If they have an award on the roster and didn't have a TAB, they're 14-02D. Too much work. I just did it to find if one person was awarded anything. They were so 14-02D bids have bid awarded to some. No idea how many. Dogg |
Thanks for saving me the hassle of looking
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:49 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands