Houston, you have a problem?
05-23-2015, 05:43 AM
#111
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Originally Posted by Mitch Rapp05
If the SLI had actually followed ALPA merger policy and was fair and equitable then we wouldn't have this problem.
Longevity Sled
05-23-2015, 06:23 AM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Originally Posted by boxer6
How do you equate this as having an equal effect? Regardless of the fact ORD 747 reopened in short order, the fence precluded ANY LCAL guys from bidding it. The MOU for 747 ONLY affected LUAL guys. And nobody from that side cried about it.
Everybody understood that it made sense in this HIGHLY unusual occurrence. When has ANY company reopened a fleet in a base a year after closing it?
Never mind the fact they lost a HUGE amount of high value customers to Cathay in the process. They irreparably damaged a large amount of UA's revenue stream and realized it,but only after the damage was done.
Punative closure anyone?
Everybody understood that it made sense in this HIGHLY unusual occurrence. When has ANY company reopened a fleet in a base a year after closing it?
Never mind the fact they lost a HUGE amount of high value customers to Cathay in the process. They irreparably damaged a large amount of UA's revenue stream and realized it,but only after the damage was done.
Punative closure anyone?
I fear it is useless to argue with sleeves. Yes, the company completely closed the ORD 747 base, and then approached ALPA about reopening it. An unprecedented act not specifically covered in the UPA. Yes, the 747 was and is fenced and therefore affected no LCAL pilots. He does not care. It's exactly the same as a pending IAH displacement in his eyes. Never mind the displacements in DEN, SEA, ORD....IAH is different. Some sort of conspiracy, and just like the 747 base closure....Ok sleeves. Gotcha.
Sled
05-23-2015, 06:32 AM
#113
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 264
Originally Posted by jsled
I fear it is useless to argue with sleeves. Yes, the company completely closed the ORD 747 base, and then approached ALPA about reopening it. An unprecedented act not specifically covered in the UPA. Yes, the 747 was and is fenced and therefore affected no LCAL pilots. He does not care. It's exactly the same as a pending IAH displacement in his eyes. Never mind the displacements in DEN, SEA, ORD....IAH is different. Some sort of conspiracy, and just like the 747 base closure....Ok sleeves. Gotcha.
Sled
Sled
Depression is when you lose yours.
It's all about perspective.
05-23-2015, 06:47 AM
#114
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
Originally Posted by boxer6
How do you equate this as having an equal effect? Regardless of the fact ORD 747 reopened in short order, the fence precluded ANY LCAL guys from bidding it. The MOU for 747 ONLY affected LUAL guys. And nobody from that side cried about it.
Everybody understood that it made sense in this HIGHLY unusual occurrence. When has ANY company reopened a fleet in a base a year after closing it?
Never mind the fact they lost a HUGE amount of high value customers to Cathay in the process. They irreparably damaged a large amount of UA's revenue stream and realized it,but only after the damage was done.
Punative closure anyone?
Everybody understood that it made sense in this HIGHLY unusual occurrence. When has ANY company reopened a fleet in a base a year after closing it?
Never mind the fact they lost a HUGE amount of high value customers to Cathay in the process. They irreparably damaged a large amount of UA's revenue stream and realized it,but only after the damage was done.
Punative closure anyone?
05-23-2015, 07:13 AM
#115
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: 737 CAPT
Posts: 1,882
Originally Posted by sleeves
Was he ever IAH Based?
Originally Posted by Blockoutblockin
Are you trying to be cagey or are you just really junior?
Originally Posted by sleeves
Neither, just not sure why you think Leneski has IAH roots.
If you are new or unaware of the history, Leneski was the ExpressJet MEC Chairman prior to being hired at Continental. So, yes, there is definitely history with IAH going back many, many years.
05-23-2015, 09:21 AM
#116
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Gets weekends off
Posts: 1,168
Originally Posted by sleeves
Ok so the 747 guys were given,or we paid as a group, for a special carve out. Something I am sure will not be afforded to the IAH Pilots.
I do not really care if this passes or not. I just find it quite hypocritical.
I do not really care if this passes or not. I just find it quite hypocritical.
Feed free to do whatever carveouts you want on the scabliner until the fence drops.
05-23-2015, 10:02 AM
#117
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Originally Posted by sleeves
Ok so the 747 guys were given,or we paid as a group, for a special carve out. Something I am sure will not be afforded to the IAH Pilots.
I do not really care if this passes or not. I just find it quite hypocritical.
I do not really care if this passes or not. I just find it quite hypocritical.
2) We did not pay as a group for the 747 fiasco, other than our honor, as the "grandfathering" actually saved the company a huge amount of money in training expenses as they could short course pilots back into their seats.
In fact, I really wish we'd stop "helping" the company solve their own self-induced problems in an era where the company feels free to speed on many sections of the contract. And that includes the unintended consequences of the company artificially "growing" (cough) IAH during Abbot's reign at CAL and the company's post-merger pre-ISL staffing shenanigans that also resulted in "growth" (cough) in IAH as IAH was used as a superbase to cover flying that would normally have been flown locally by other domiciles. In a twist of irony, I don't recall C171 screaming about the unfairness at the time.
Last edited by cadetdrivr; 05-23-2015 at 10:13 AM.
05-23-2015, 10:31 AM
#118
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Gets weekends off
Posts: 1,168
Originally Posted by cadetdrivr
post-merger pre-ISL staffing shenanigans that also resulted in "growth" (cough) in IAH as IAH was used as a superbase to cover flying that would normally have been flown locally by other domiciles.
IAH 546
EWR 411
ORD 218
SFO 196
DEN 164
LAX 163
CLE 99
GUM 84
IAD 39
05-23-2015, 10:47 AM
#119
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 737 fo
Posts: 908
Originally Posted by cadetdrivr
1) Pretty sure the company would first have to actually close the entire IAH domicile to start to meet the threshold of hyprocricy for a 'carve out'. There is already clear contract language that deals with staffing surpluses.
2) We did not pay as a group for the 747 fiasco, other than our honor, as the "grandfathering" actually saved the company a huge amount of money in training expenses as they could short course pilots back into their seats.
In fact, I really wish we'd stop "helping" the company solve their own self-induced problems in an era where the company feels free to speed on many sections of the contract. And that includes the unintended consequences of the company artificially "growing" (cough) IAH during Abbot's reign at CAL and the company's post-merger pre-ISL staffing shenanigans that also resulted in "growth" (cough) in IAH as IAH was used as a superbase to cover flying that would normally have been flown locally by other domiciles. In a twist of irony, I don't recall C171 screaming about the unfairness at the time.
2) We did not pay as a group for the 747 fiasco, other than our honor, as the "grandfathering" actually saved the company a huge amount of money in training expenses as they could short course pilots back into their seats.
In fact, I really wish we'd stop "helping" the company solve their own self-induced problems in an era where the company feels free to speed on many sections of the contract. And that includes the unintended consequences of the company artificially "growing" (cough) IAH during Abbot's reign at CAL and the company's post-merger pre-ISL staffing shenanigans that also resulted in "growth" (cough) in IAH as IAH was used as a superbase to cover flying that would normally have been flown locally by other domiciles. In a twist of irony, I don't recall C171 screaming about the unfairness at the time.
2. The "shenanigans" that increased IAH occurred well before the Merger. C171 at the time was "lead" by a whole different demographic. I believe that Ben was actually EWR based when it happen. The company should pay extensively to play with people's lives like this.
05-23-2015, 10:54 AM
#120
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,838
Originally Posted by pilot64golfer
Current guppy Captains by base. Anyone notice any "imbalances"
IAH 546
EWR 411
ORD 218
SFO 196
DEN 164
LAX 163
CLE 99
GUM 84
IAD 39
IAH 546
EWR 411
ORD 218
SFO 196
DEN 164
LAX 163
CLE 99
GUM 84
IAD 39
I was riding in the tram in DTW listening to ATL pilots talk about a triple DTW overnight doing high value trans cons, while DTW pilots were doing double and triple ATL overnights doing "Florida turns" (typically not-fun multiple, low value legs) out of ATL.
Back in the day, MSP used to do summer overnights in Montana and winter overnights in Panama City, while DTW crews did the opposite.
Nu
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Chris
Flight Schools and Training
14
12-21-2008 03:08 AM
