Search

Notices

Vacancy Snapshot

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-18-2014 | 06:42 AM
  #21  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
From: 747 Captain, retired
Default

Originally Posted by Lambourne
Wasn't that for reopening of ORD. How many going forward will there be. To see the fence as a win proves your blindness to common sense. I'm a L-UA pilot and view the loss of growth airplanes as a complete screw up by our negotiating committee. They did a very good job for the most part, they just listened to the wrong crowd when it applied to fencing the 747.
20/20 hindsight is rearing it's ugly head. Our (l-ual) negotiating team lost several battles with Pierce, who took full advantage of the hammer he had with respect to our 2003 Bankruptcy contract signed under duress. That concessionary contract put heat on the Negotiating Team to get a deal. And Pierce stood in the way; demanding things like merged pay-scale demands with the 737 and 767-400. It was a hard swallow to agree to these demands to get a contract. So the Negotiating Team had to come thru on the fences - which historically are issues that are demanded by merged airlines. Good or Bad, they are here to stay - at least for a while. So enjoy the 787...for now
Reply
Old 02-18-2014 | 07:55 AM
  #22  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
From: A320 Driver
Default

Originally Posted by Toddnel
It's not just LUAL, there is something about that airplane that seems to invoke a lack of rational thinking at times. Ask the old NWA guys and they will tell you the same thing. The 747 lead them down similar paths and often times made for some poor negotiating results. God help us if we ever get a Super Jumbo on the property, someone will want this uniform to set them apart!

That's what I wear on my days off. All the girls' eyes are on me when I walk into the local KFC!
Reply
Old 02-18-2014 | 08:17 AM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Default

Does anyone know how these current max/mins were derived?

The last bid had 75 EWR76t FO vacancies to fill and roughly 15-20 were filled. but this max/min bulletin shows EWR76t FOs at max of 96 now? What happened to the rest of the 60 vacancies?
Reply
Old 02-18-2014 | 08:47 AM
  #24  
Lerxst's Avatar
Line Holder
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 735
Likes: 0
From: B787 CA - SFO
Default

Originally Posted by krudawg
20/20 hindsight is rearing it's ugly head. Our (l-ual) negotiating team lost several battles with Pierce, who took full advantage of the hammer he had with respect to our 2003 Bankruptcy contract signed under duress. That concessionary contract put heat on the Negotiating Team to get a deal. And Pierce stood in the way; demanding things like merged pay-scale demands with the 737 and 767-400. It was a hard swallow to agree to these demands to get a contract. So the Negotiating Team had to come thru on the fences - which historically are issues that are demanded by merged airlines. Good or Bad, they are here to stay - at least for a while. So enjoy the 787...for now
Fences were asked for by the Merger Cmte, not the Neg Cmte. There wasn't an LUA or LCAL Neg Cmte either, there was a JointNC comprised of both teams.
Reply
Old 02-18-2014 | 10:55 AM
  #25  
Toddnel's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
From: EWR 777 FO
Default

Originally Posted by Lerxst
Fences were asked for by the Merger Cmte, not the Neg Cmte. There wasn't an LUA or LCAL Neg Cmte either, there was a JointNC comprised of both teams.
Yup my mistake on that typo, it was late at night. I meant to say merger committee, not neg.
Reply
Old 02-18-2014 | 11:13 AM
  #26  
untied's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 521
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by krudawg
20/20 hindsight is rearing it's ugly head. Our (l-ual) negotiating team lost several battles with Pierce, who took full advantage of the hammer he had with respect to our 2003 Bankruptcy contract signed under duress. That concessionary contract put heat on the Negotiating Team to get a deal. And Pierce stood in the way; demanding things like merged pay-scale demands with the 737 and 767-400. It was a hard swallow to agree to these demands to get a contract. So the Negotiating Team had to come thru on the fences - which historically are issues that are demanded by merged airlines. Good or Bad, they are here to stay - at least for a while. So enjoy the 787...for now
Everything Pierce did, he did to affect the SLI.

In the end, all his shenanigans failed to have any influence on the combined seniority list.

He lost.

He hurt us all (LCAL and LUAL) in the process.

Is he over in management yet??
Reply
Old 02-18-2014 | 11:16 AM
  #27  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,069
Likes: 25
Default

Originally Posted by Tonne
Does anyone know how these current max/mins were derived?

The last bid had 75 EWR76t FO vacancies to fill and roughly 15-20 were filled. but this max/min bulletin shows EWR76t FOs at max of 96 now? What happened to the rest of the 60 vacancies?
By going unfilled that puts them in the pool of available assignments for recallee/new hires. However, the company doesn't have to assign all of them so I don't think they include any of them in the bulletin numbers. As those assignments are given out to recallees or new hires then they will be included in the numbers.

So, I think that these numbers are based on the current bids held by the pilots that are actually on the property.
Reply
Old 02-18-2014 | 03:25 PM
  #28  
MasterOfPuppets's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,599
Likes: 205
From: 787
Default

a more realistic snap shot has been posted no DEN, IAH or ORD backfills for FOs and junior CA is EWR 737 6264.
Reply
Old 02-19-2014 | 04:34 AM
  #29  
Toddnel's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
From: EWR 777 FO
Default

Originally Posted by MasterOfPuppets
a more realistic snap shot has been posted no DEN, IAH or ORD backfills for FOs and junior CA is EWR 737 6264.
That sounds more realistic. I am surprised how senior the 737 in EWR is going. I'm sure as these bids continue, we will see it trend back towards a more junior position. One of the reasons it was soo junior on the CAL side premerger was because anything less than 50% in base absolutely sucked, especially during the summer. It is always chronically understaffed, very few trips are commutable and the reserves are abused. Now add in the three airport deal and there are probably some Siberian prisons that will be more welcoming. I did it for two years at about 70% in base. I still have the scars.

The island flying is fun however for those who love flying and have no family.
Reply
Old 02-19-2014 | 05:01 AM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Toddnel
That sounds more realistic. I am surprised how senior the 737 in EWR is going. I'm sure as these bids continue, we will see it trend back towards a more junior position. One of the reasons it was soo junior on the CAL side premerger was because anything less than 50% in base absolutely sucked, especially during the summer. It is always chronically understaffed, very few trips are commutable and the reserves are abused. Now add in the three airport deal and there are probably some Siberian prisons that will be more welcoming. I did it for two years at about 70% in base. I still have the scars.

The island flying is fun however for those who love flying and have no family.
Excellent post. I think the bid is at this seniority because they will ALL be line holders . The junior one on this snapshot should be in the 65ish% range.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
LeeMat
United
217
02-06-2013 07:04 PM
Nimitz
United
20
09-13-2012 04:31 PM
EWRflyr
United
42
07-28-2011 08:28 AM
ERJ135
Regional
44
07-21-2008 06:49 PM
DiamondZ
Cargo
26
08-03-2007 01:18 PM

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