Houston, you have a problem?
05-20-2015, 07:00 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Originally Posted by Dragon7
Maybe they can call on the Great and Powerful and nonexistent MOU4 to give everybody a 24 month right of return if the Boston Consulting Group might be a tad off and seats surprisingly return to where they just disappeared. Like in Ord on the 74.
Two things in play here.
1. The company gets it wrong. A lot.
2. The MEC represents different parts of the pilot group differently.
And yep i am getting in line just as soon as the letter shows up. Denver is nice in the fall i hear.
Two things in play here.
1. The company gets it wrong. A lot.
2. The MEC represents different parts of the pilot group differently.
And yep i am getting in line just as soon as the letter shows up. Denver is nice in the fall i hear.
Oh yes. Denver is quite nice in the Fall. Maybe we can fly together as I am waiting for the letter as well.
05-20-2015, 08:43 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Gets weekends off
Posts: 1,168
Originally Posted by Dragon7
The MEC represents different parts of the pilot group differently.
If ALPA does nothing different in this surplus than the last 100 surplusses, then ALPA is biased against the IAH pilots and representing the other pilots differently.
If ALPA steps in and makes a carve out just for the IAH pilots then they are representing those pilots differently.
So you can claim you were right either way. Or you can bring up the base closure and reopening in ORD (which isn't even close to the same thing as a surplus) and use that as an example.
Enjoy living in your non-pin wearing ALPA hating existence because you are in the minority around these parts.
05-20-2015, 08:44 PM
#33
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by Dragon7
Maybe they can call on the Great and Powerful and nonexistent MOU4 to give everybody a 24 month right of return if the Boston Consulting Group might be a tad off and seats surprisingly return to where they just disappeared. Like in Ord on the 74.
Two things in play here.
1. The company gets it wrong. A lot.
2. The MEC represents different parts of the pilot group differently.
And yep i am getting in line just as soon as the letter shows up. Denver is nice in the fall i hear.
Two things in play here.
1. The company gets it wrong. A lot.
2. The MEC represents different parts of the pilot group differently.
And yep i am getting in line just as soon as the letter shows up. Denver is nice in the fall i hear.
Once again, you choose to ignore the fact that ORD 747 and IAH 737 are different animals, despite it being pointed out to you several times. ORD 747 was a BASE CLOSURE. Same as SEA 777, SEA 767, LAX 747. Notice a theme to all these? LUAL seats with tons and tons of bumps. And you are claiming the MEC is biased towards LUAL pilots?? Where have you been? If they CLOSE IAH 737, by all means you will get your 24 month grandfather rights.
It wouldn't surprise me a BIT if the company puts a bid out for IAH 737 CAP's in a year or so. Hell they TDY'd into SFO 737 CAP AND out out SFO 737 CAP IN THE SAME MONTH. Manpower planning has absolutely no clue what's going on. And if they DO bid back into IAH, if you are senior enough to hold it, good for you. But to expect the MEC to all of a sudden hoist a 24 month grandfather to the company (which would require us giving them SOMETHING in return) because YOU are getting bumped when you were happily silent to the LUAL pilots getting bumped from ORD 320, DEN 320, DEN 767, SEA 777, SEA 767, and LAX 400 is RIDICULOUS. Do the math, you're ahead 6-1 in the bump game.
I also find it ironic that you are complaining that the RSV aggressive pickup is being changed to a seniority system because you say it's in the clearly spelled out that way in the contract and therefore shouldn't change. The very same contract you want to change to include a 24 month grandfather. I'm guessing you are a VERY junior 737 Captain in IAH. 2006 hire? You've had one heck of a lucky ride my friend. Just appreciate that you have been lucky to be in the seat for the past 4 years or so.
05-20-2015, 09:24 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 168
I could see a compromise of MOU 14 type protections for displaced pilots but the protections would be ONLY for vacancies due to flying RETURNED to a category, not for vacancies due to "ATTRITION". That was the intent of MOU 14. Unfortunately, the 747 which brought us the 747/787 fence brought us flawed MOU 14 and all it's baggage.
Last edited by Birddog; 05-20-2015 at 10:08 PM.
05-20-2015, 09:33 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,158
My opinion is that a special carve out for the IAH pilots is very divisive, and would treat the IAH pilots differently than the rest of the union members. One point I think that most everyone is missing, is, even if the MEC passes this, (more on that in a moment,) the company would still have to go along with it. ALPA doesn't tell the company what to do.
Next item. Everyone is saying ALPA should to this, should do that....well, got to tell you folks, ALPA is you. If you want ALPA to do or not to do something, you'd better get involved and right now! As distasteful as this thing is, it actually has a chance to pass the MEC. So, you say again, #@$!%^#&#&^@ ALPA!! That's you dude! You'd better talk to your LEC reps, and do it soon, because guess what, your LEC members make up the MEC! Imagine that. You have input to your union.
Step up to the plate! Now, I have a friend, yes I know that concept is boggling enough, but he is having problems posting on the forum, and MY OPINION is that everyone deserves a voice. He asked me to post a communication from the C5 rep, in EWR, Mark.
Mark supports the IAH resolution because it is like the ORD 747 bumps. Unfortunately, Mark may have the facts wrong. The ORD case, as stated above, was a base closure not a displacement or bump. Mike is my friend that wrote the letter to Mark. If you EWR guys don't want IAH to have a special deal, you need to educate Mark as to your wishes.
As Mike points out to me, it's not out of the realm of possible, that this thing may pass. If IAH LEC supports it, majority in EWR LEC support it, it would take only a small number of votes somewhere else, say, ORD to pass it. Scary stuff.
So, quite all ya'lls whining about ALPA doing stuff to you. Get involved and tell your reps what you want. ALPA is you.
Here are the letters by way of Mike, lightly edited for the internet:
"Mark,
I just had a resolution out of C171 forwarded to me seeking to give protections to displaced pilots there outside of the contract. While I would never wish a surplus or displacement upon any pilot, it is a mistake to begin "carving out" groups of pilots to protect or give special treatment to. Such protections are addressed in our contract.
I also understand the temptation to play politics and use the roll call power of C171, C5, and C12 to make a statement but please keep in mind that you represent the pilots of C5 and the excess of pilots in C171 is hurting our flying in EWR. "
From:
"Leneski......UAL005 Vice Chairman"
To:
MIKE
Sent: Wed, 20 May 2015 15:45:56 +0000
Subject: Re: C171 Resolution
"Mike
I support this resolution. We have made carve outs for the 747 and SEA. What this resolution would prevent is the company displacing pilots and then rerunning a bid replacing the pilots who lost their seats
I agree that a lot of this flying is EWR flying however this is apple and oranges. If they displace and don't backfill the displacements in IAH they get nothing. However if they displace and backfill the seats on a later bid, this will prevent it.
Mark"
Enforce your contract. Insist on it!
Next item. Everyone is saying ALPA should to this, should do that....well, got to tell you folks, ALPA is you. If you want ALPA to do or not to do something, you'd better get involved and right now! As distasteful as this thing is, it actually has a chance to pass the MEC. So, you say again, #@$!%^#&#&^@ ALPA!! That's you dude! You'd better talk to your LEC reps, and do it soon, because guess what, your LEC members make up the MEC! Imagine that. You have input to your union.
Step up to the plate! Now, I have a friend, yes I know that concept is boggling enough, but he is having problems posting on the forum, and MY OPINION is that everyone deserves a voice. He asked me to post a communication from the C5 rep, in EWR, Mark.
Mark supports the IAH resolution because it is like the ORD 747 bumps. Unfortunately, Mark may have the facts wrong. The ORD case, as stated above, was a base closure not a displacement or bump. Mike is my friend that wrote the letter to Mark. If you EWR guys don't want IAH to have a special deal, you need to educate Mark as to your wishes.
As Mike points out to me, it's not out of the realm of possible, that this thing may pass. If IAH LEC supports it, majority in EWR LEC support it, it would take only a small number of votes somewhere else, say, ORD to pass it. Scary stuff.
So, quite all ya'lls whining about ALPA doing stuff to you. Get involved and tell your reps what you want. ALPA is you.
Here are the letters by way of Mike, lightly edited for the internet:
"Mark,
I just had a resolution out of C171 forwarded to me seeking to give protections to displaced pilots there outside of the contract. While I would never wish a surplus or displacement upon any pilot, it is a mistake to begin "carving out" groups of pilots to protect or give special treatment to. Such protections are addressed in our contract.
I also understand the temptation to play politics and use the roll call power of C171, C5, and C12 to make a statement but please keep in mind that you represent the pilots of C5 and the excess of pilots in C171 is hurting our flying in EWR. "
From:
"Leneski......UAL005 Vice Chairman"
To:
MIKE
Sent: Wed, 20 May 2015 15:45:56 +0000
Subject: Re: C171 Resolution
"Mike
I support this resolution. We have made carve outs for the 747 and SEA. What this resolution would prevent is the company displacing pilots and then rerunning a bid replacing the pilots who lost their seats
I agree that a lot of this flying is EWR flying however this is apple and oranges. If they displace and don't backfill the displacements in IAH they get nothing. However if they displace and backfill the seats on a later bid, this will prevent it.
Mark"
Enforce your contract. Insist on it!
05-21-2015, 02:07 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Position: Pressing On
Posts: 524
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
So now that it's YOUR seat they are surplussing out of, you want 24 months. You (and Ben) would have had a lot more credibility if you were on the front lines fighting for the 24 month grandfather when LUAL pilots were getting bumped left and right out of ORD, SEA, LAX and DEN.
Once again, you choose to ignore the fact that ORD 747 and IAH 737 are different animals, despite it being pointed out to you several times. ORD 747 was a BASE CLOSURE. Same as SEA 777, SEA 767, LAX 747. Notice a theme to all these? LUAL seats with tons and tons of bumps. And you are claiming the MEC is biased towards LUAL pilots?? Where have you been? If they CLOSE IAH 737, by all means you will get your 24 month grandfather rights.
It wouldn't surprise me a BIT if the company puts a bid out for IAH 737 CAP's in a year or so. Hell they TDY'd into SFO 737 CAP AND out out SFO 737 CAP IN THE SAME MONTH. Manpower planning has absolutely no clue what's going on. And if they DO bid back into IAH, if you are senior enough to hold it, good for you. But to expect the MEC to all of a sudden hoist a 24 month grandfather to the company (which would require us giving them SOMETHING in return) because YOU are getting bumped when you were happily silent to the LUAL pilots getting bumped from ORD 320, DEN 320, DEN 767, SEA 777, SEA 767, and LAX 400 is RIDICULOUS. Do the math, you're ahead 6-1 in the bump game.
I also find it ironic that you are complaining that the RSV aggressive pickup is being changed to a seniority system because you say it's in the clearly spelled out that way in the contract and therefore shouldn't change. The very same contract you want to change to include a 24 month grandfather. I'm guessing you are a VERY junior 737 Captain in IAH. 2006 hire? You've had one heck of a lucky ride my friend. Just appreciate that you have been lucky to be in the seat for the past 4 years or so.
Once again, you choose to ignore the fact that ORD 747 and IAH 737 are different animals, despite it being pointed out to you several times. ORD 747 was a BASE CLOSURE. Same as SEA 777, SEA 767, LAX 747. Notice a theme to all these? LUAL seats with tons and tons of bumps. And you are claiming the MEC is biased towards LUAL pilots?? Where have you been? If they CLOSE IAH 737, by all means you will get your 24 month grandfather rights.
It wouldn't surprise me a BIT if the company puts a bid out for IAH 737 CAP's in a year or so. Hell they TDY'd into SFO 737 CAP AND out out SFO 737 CAP IN THE SAME MONTH. Manpower planning has absolutely no clue what's going on. And if they DO bid back into IAH, if you are senior enough to hold it, good for you. But to expect the MEC to all of a sudden hoist a 24 month grandfather to the company (which would require us giving them SOMETHING in return) because YOU are getting bumped when you were happily silent to the LUAL pilots getting bumped from ORD 320, DEN 320, DEN 767, SEA 777, SEA 767, and LAX 400 is RIDICULOUS. Do the math, you're ahead 6-1 in the bump game.
I also find it ironic that you are complaining that the RSV aggressive pickup is being changed to a seniority system because you say it's in the clearly spelled out that way in the contract and therefore shouldn't change. The very same contract you want to change to include a 24 month grandfather. I'm guessing you are a VERY junior 737 Captain in IAH. 2006 hire? You've had one heck of a lucky ride my friend. Just appreciate that you have been lucky to be in the seat for the past 4 years or so.
On a brighter note have never heard a pilot that flies or flew the Bus not rave about it.
05-21-2015, 05:03 AM
#39
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by sleeves
Ahh, jealousy ...don't be a hater.
Last edited by gettinbumped; 05-21-2015 at 05:18 AM.
05-21-2015, 05:18 AM
#40
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by Dragon7
You would be guessing wrong. Like the majority here I do not prefer to go to training for same or less pay and expect the company to try and jerk me around a bit. I expect ALPA to at least not help facilitate those situations.
On a brighter note have never heard a pilot that flies or flew the Bus not rave about it.
On a brighter note have never heard a pilot that flies or flew the Bus not rave about it.
ALPA in no way shape or form is helping facilitate bumps. If you believe that then you're so far out in left field it's not worth discussing. You're refusal to acknowledge the difference between a bump and a base closure is indicative that perhaps you're out there fielding fly balls. The company has the right to bump within the realm of the contract. In my 20 years here I've been bumped 3 times, so I know of what I speak. It sucked each time. Never got super special grandfather rights, and didn't cry that ALPA screwed me.
FWIW I agree with you that it was a mistake to change the reserve agressive pickup rules to allow a 1055 run because it's a change to the rules of the game after its already being played. People bid based on the information they have, and I thought it was unfair to then move the system like that. No problem running a 1055 trade run as the contract says the company can run as many as they would like, but to allow reserves to bid in the seniority system instead of the real time system is a change that goes beyond the scope of what was written...and I'm senior so it doesn't affect me. Still think it's unfair.
As far as the Bus goes, it's aces. If you end up there you will LOVE it. I've flown both and it's no comparison for working condition QOL. The training is outstanding. PM me and I'll give you the name of a great LCA down there for OE.
Despite what it sounds like in my post, I'm TRULY and sincerely sorry if you do end up getting bumped. I think it's a STUPID move by the company, and I don't wish it on ANY of my brothers and sisters from either side of the legacy system. But the sense of entitlement whereas all of a sudden there should be a change to the grandfather rights JUST because it's a IAH bump is distasteful. As is blaming ALPA for stupid management tricks.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Chris
Flight Schools and Training
14
12-21-2008 03:08 AM
