![]() |
So, this presents a unified pilot group going into contract talks, what, next year??
Regardless of the plight of IAH pilots, which I don't wish on anyone, this would be a very bad precedent to set. |
Originally Posted by Dave Fitzgerald
(Post 1872692)
So, this presents a unified pilot group going into contract talks, what, next year??
Regardless of the plight of IAH pilots, which I don't wish on anyone, this would be a very bad precedent to set. |
Originally Posted by Dave Fitzgerald
(Post 1872692)
So, this presents a unified pilot group going into contract talks, what, next year??
Regardless of the plight of IAH pilots, which I don't wish on anyone, this would be a very bad precedent to set. What's worth is it harms the base. This is why. 100% of all the IAH pilots can stay in IAH on the surplus. No one can be forced out. Let's say a 737 Captain decides to go to EWR and stay a 737 Captain, he's choosing to leave the base. He's now a EWR based pilot. So 2 years down the road there is an IAH 737 Captain bid and a IAH based 756 FO who is senior decides to bid it, but it is being "held" for a guy who has been based in EWR for 2 years. How does that benefit the IAH based pilot? What does his seniority count for? Nothing, its been abrogated by politics. This isn't going to happen period. Ben is 30 from the bottom and likely to be bumped, which is unfortunate. But where was this proposal when there were 40 737 pilots displaced from IAH in January? Now that Ben is affected he wants protection. Fragmenting the pilot group by domicile and setting up competing political interests is not in the best interest of the entire pilot group. |
Our(LUAL) entitlement to fly your -400 was probably a more than fair deal to not fence our 777s from the LCAL guys.
|
Originally Posted by pilot64golfer
(Post 1872712)
This isn't going to happen period.
|
Originally Posted by pilot64golfer
(Post 1872712)
Yes. The argument here is "protecting IAH pilots". Are we that fragmented as a group? Was there a "north vs south" battle for flying pre-merger at CAL that created this type of thinking?
What's worth is it harms the base. This is why. 100% of all the IAH pilots can stay in IAH on the surplus. No one can be forced out. Let's say a 737 Captain decides to go to EWR and stay a 737 Captain, he's choosing to leave the base. He's now a EWR based pilot. So 2 years down the road there is an IAH 737 Captain bid and a IAH based 756 FO who is senior decides to bid it, but it is being "held" for a guy who has been based in EWR for 2 years. How does that benefit the IAH based pilot? What does his seniority count for? Nothing, its been abrogated by politics. This isn't going to happen period. Ben is 30 from the bottom and likely to be bumped, which is unfortunate. But where was this proposal when there were 40 737 pilots displaced from IAH in January? Now that Ben is affected he wants protection. Fragmenting the pilot group by domicile and setting up competing political interests is not in the best interest of the entire pilot group. Then they can all retreat to a nice dinner and talk about it over some drinks. |
Originally Posted by A320
(Post 1872799)
Our(LUAL) entitlement to fly your -400 was probably a more than fair deal to not fence our 777s from the LCAL guys.
|
Originally Posted by sovt
(Post 1873472)
Given the results of the 747 fence you guys demanded, it's too bad you didn't ask for all sorts if fences.
|
Originally Posted by AllenAllert
(Post 1873665)
Are you kidding? All LUAL Pilots wanted to be SUPER GUPPY pilots. In reality what we did was give the good LCAL guys a break by corralling most of the less desirables on SPARKY. You're welcome!
Unfortunate. |
Originally Posted by Scrappy
(Post 1873689)
As usual it always breaks down to this… :mad:
Unfortunate.
Originally Posted by sovt
(Post 1873472)
Given the results of the 747 fence you guys demanded, it's too bad you didn't ask for all sorts if fences.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:19 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands