I sure as heck hope that we did not overfly Colombia enroute IAH to SJO (San Jose, Costa Rica).

 

I am, and that resolution was inclusive of ALL United Pilots. The problem is that we (MEC) did it for other bases in the past via LOA, unanimously. All of a sudden, it's an issue.

To be honest, the "back-room deal" lie started long before this resolution. But it's still, just as ridiculous.

 

So how are the employees at Hotel Del Rio doing?

 

At what bases and under what circumstances did the MEC unanimously act via LOA?

 

An LOA is a deviation from the contract by definition. Unlike the 171 resolution, we (MEC) unanimously deviated for specific bases.

You know that...I hope

 

When the circumstances are different, one mistake justifies another? For the betterment of all or not, it is interesting how C171 wants to deviate only when presented with impending displacements at their doorstep.

 

Evidently not, if it's offers 171 the same relief that we offered others.


The action taken Oct 25, 2013 (MOU 14) was clearly a carve out for ORD, LAX, SEA. There wasn't a complaint mentioned by 171 Pilots, who voted in favor of supporting those Pilots. There wasn't a complaint by YOU to offer SEA, ORD or LAX relief. Even here, APC, there are about 20 pages of dissent for the 171 resolution. The 171 resolution gives grandfather rights to ALL United Pilots. In contrast, MOU 14 provides relief for SEA, ORD and LAX only. How can attitudes be so clearly different?

Read the "Official" literature.

 

Ben,

You can try as hard as you wish to equate the LOA to what you're trying to do in 171, the they are different situations.

They did not deal with a simple drawdown in flying or a base rebalance. It dealt with things like base closure and reopening.

You are simply trying to protect pilots that are in seats which, based on recent bidding results, shows they are there out of seniority.....and only there because of pre-SLI antics.

Did the LOAs go against the contract? Yes. Did it protect pilots that could not have held those seats with a normal bid once they reopened ORD? Absolutely not.

 

If they close and re-open the 171 Guppy base then I'd say you're comparing apples to apples.

I feel for all those affected (and I'm losing relative seniority in my bidding well) but I just don't think you can compare the closing of a base (and in the case of ORD 400 the re-opening which brought the company asking for the LOA one month before the bid came out) with the company adjusting the size of a fleet at the base.

IMHO, If you're senior enough to hold the position when the next bid is posted, you are awarded it. Every single CA displaced in IAH can still be a CA somewhere in the system (and in the next round it'll start getting close to holding CA in IAH on another fleet) if that is indeed what they want to do. But to lock out any and all bids from the entire pilot group for 24 months abrogates the seniority of the other 12000 pilots at United to bid based on their seniority.

Displacements will always be a risk, especially for those who chose to be junior in a fleet/seat. We had many 4-5 yr CAs at UAL back in the late 90s. 9/11 ended that with the immediate parking of the 727 and 737-200. It's just part of this crazy industry.

 

Well, that's sort of a crppppy way to view it. The age demographics of L CAL were what they were. We had 2 year employees flying Captain out of EWR too long ago.

CAL was going to have to park airplanes if we didn't both hire FO's and upgrade Captains. Furthermore, the rumors of mergers with UAL, then DAL, then back to UAL were just that...Rumors. So, there was no way in guaranteeing that any merger would either:

A. be approved by management (kellener didn't want it)
B. be approved by the BOD (big players weren't keen on it)
C. be approved by the anti business anit Christ President Obama


I do get a kick out of all those dudes getting agitated about the former CAL pilots who have slicks ties. These are the same bubba's moaning and groaning about junior 737 Captains who "took their seats."

Some of the biggest reasons management had in not wanting to approve the merger was the absolutely abysmal employee culture and work climate at the airline. I do think while we gained an extremely competitive route structure we have squandered away our competitive advantage by not being able to compete from both a reliability stand point and a customer service stand point. These two issues I believe to be directly related to the climate and culture of the airline. No one seems to care, and since no one seems to care you get the slick ties, and all that taxing about on two motors. Heck, I see people adding gas just because they are PO'd.

Surely you can't be mad at the 98 hires who held Captain in 2000? We were in the same boat then. No one wanted to be a junior Captain in EWR and those seats had to be filled by someone. I guess we could have outsourced it to Air Lingus or something.........