![]() |
Originally Posted by sleeves
(Post 1872597)
I'm just correcting a false statement. I agree with the first part of your quote, and if this is truly about rebalancing the bases then so be it. If it is about righting the system then I do not agree we will be better off, as that is a flush bid and was prohibited in the TPA.
|
Originally Posted by Flyguppy
(Post 1872602)
It makes NO difference on when any sort of vacancy is released in relation to when a displacement is released. NONE!! NADA!!
Vacancy bid happens first, one would presume the 737 guys see the bump coming, and no one bids the 320 vacancy. Therefore, other guys more junior will get bids into the IAH 320 base. If they are more junior, then more guys off the guppy will be able to use bumps into that category. Does it make a difference, maybe not in the long run, except for freezes. This won't prevent possible secondary bumps, but my guess is that manpower has already planned some of that in their forecast. And, if the 320 is growing that fast, in addition to used 319's purchased, then it is possible there would be no secondary bumps at all. Sorry if I am presuming the obvious. It will have the effect of some leveling of past out of seniority bids. |
Originally Posted by Dave Fitzgerald
(Post 1872686)
Ok, let me explain what the other guys was trying to explain. Yes it does make a difference. It depends on if you want to stay in the base.
Vacancy bid happens first, one would presume the 737 guys see the bump coming, and no one bids the 320 vacancy. Therefore, other guys more junior will get bids into the IAH 320 base. If they are more junior, then more guys off the guppy will be able to use bumps into that category. Does it make a difference, maybe not in the long run, except for freezes. This won't prevent possible secondary bumps, but my guess is that manpower has already planned some of that in their forecast. And, if the 320 is growing that fast, in addition to used 319's purchased, then it is possible there would be no secondary bumps at all. Sorry if I am presuming the obvious. It will have the effect of some leveling of past out of seniority bids. I know PLENTY of non IAH based pilots that would bid it in a heartbeat. |
Originally Posted by Flyguppy
(Post 1872689)
Well....that assumes A LOT about how any 320 bid would go. We've had a few recently and I don't see the Bus going super junior all of a sudden. Just not gonna happen.
I know PLENTY of non IAH based pilots that would bid it in a heartbeat. |
Originally Posted by AllenAllert
(Post 1872619)
It is about rebalancing the bases and not a flush. The company wants to move pilots to where the flying is moving. This is out of the control of the pilots but the Houston LEC projects that the flying MAY return. Ben's answer is to give IAH displaced pilots "super seniority" to cover all 737 Captain vacancies no matter how they occur. This would cover retirements, vacancies created by equipment move ups and not just the return of 737 flying to IAH. There is a strong possibility that this flying will be shifted to the 320 anyway. The "super seniority" would violate the seniority of ALL UNITED PILOTS.
|
Originally Posted by AllenAllert
(Post 1872619)
It is about rebalancing the bases and not a flush. The company wants to move pilots to where the flying is moving. This is out of the control of the pilots but the Houston LEC projects that the flying MAY return. Ben's answer is to give IAH displaced pilots "super seniority" to cover all 737 Captain vacancies no matter how they occur. This would cover retirements, vacancies created by equipment move ups and not just the return of 737 flying to IAH. There is a strong possibility that this flying will be shifted to the 320 anyway. The "super seniority" would violate the seniority of ALL UNITED PILOTS.
|
Originally Posted by sleeves
(Post 1872805)
I have not seen what Ben is asking for. Is it close to the special deal that was given to the 747 ORD pilots when their base was moved to SFO a couple years ago?
That was a base closure and the contract doesn't have language for what to do if the company closes a base and reopens it again. So they wrote a LOA that covered all these situations since the contract didn't specially cover it. Displacements are already covered in the contract. No reason for a carve out. Just let seniority work the way it is supposed to. They can bid back in when there are vacancies. |
Originally Posted by pilot64golfer
(Post 1872823)
Two completely different things.
That was a base closure and the contract doesn't have language for what to do if the company closes a base and reopens it again. So they wrote a LOA that covered all these situations since the contract didn't specially cover it. Displacements are already covered in the contract. No reason for a carve out. Just let seniority work the way it is supposed to. They can bid back in when there are vacancies. |
The reality is the IAH 737 population is far bigger than needed. I suppose it's difficult for some to realize that Houston is no longer the "favorite child" of the airline.
A little background pre-merger..... Newark domicile was shrunk and Houston grew because EWR was seen as militant and filled with trouble makers. Of course it was sold as favor to the pilots as most wanted to be home in good ol' Texas. I don't recall many in Houston complaining back then with the influx of more staffing. Eventually this will all balance out, but again the reality is the 737 is way over staffed in Houston. Enjoy the Airbus. |
Originally Posted by sleeves
(Post 1872805)
I have not seen what Ben is asking for. Is it close to the special deal that was given to the 747 ORD pilots when their base was moved to SFO a couple years ago?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:49 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands