Displacement bid out
06-21-2015 | 09:02 AM
#81
Banned
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
06-21-2015 | 09:08 AM
#82
Ben Salley
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
From: Left
I gather you didn't actually read the literature I suggested, and just pulled out the old medical almanac.
06-21-2015 | 10:16 AM
#83
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
From: Gets weekends off
Also this isn't the first IAH displacement this year. 1506D was the last one. 20 Captains and 20 FOs in IAH. Why didn't we see this resolution then if it was such a good idea? And it being 150 isn't a sufficient answer because to each pilot actually displaced it doesn't matter if its just them or 150. To quote someone "Its no different to the Pilot being displaced".
So why not this resolution months ago??
06-21-2015 | 10:18 AM
#84
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 0
From: A320 Cap
Well, I'm sure you could educate me with your infinite wisdom. You guys kill me. Some of us have had experiences at other airlines before the merge.
I hope I never "learn" your way of doing business. At USAirways and lCal, ALPA fought ALL displacements/furloughs as hard as we could. I think we have a great record in that regard.
I hope I never "learn" your way of doing business. At USAirways and lCal, ALPA fought ALL displacements/furloughs as hard as we could. I think we have a great record in that regard.
06-21-2015 | 10:29 AM
#85
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
From: 737 fo
Happy Father's Day!
That aside, read your own post. Absolutely NOTHING your said is truthful or coherent.
My hope is that you might have a friend who is more educated in this regard. I hope he/she helps you understand some of the facts on the issue. If you wish to educate yourself, hear is the documentation that you should peruse:
-The initial displacement was for 350, not 150, even if done in three rounds; basic arithmetic. Read Howard's letters on the subject "base realignment/IAH Displacements.
-The MEC has already given very specific "deals" to only the Pilots of SEA, ORD and LAX. The 171 resolution would give grandfather rights to ALL United Pilots. Read the grandfather rights resolution and LOA 14.
Lastly, this incessant libel you guys drivel about Muir and I being buddies is a lie probably founded on the fact that I have an outstanding record of picking up the phone and getting Pilots out of trouble without the Pilot ever having to come to the flight office. There is a certain sub-group in our ranks who are actually disappointed when I call and tell them that their issue has been handled and there is no need for them to report to the flight office. As a result, I now ask the Pilots if they want me to handle the issue, or would they like an investigatory meeting?
I know not where Rick Muir lives, what he drives, his wife's name our how many kids he has. It's all business. We have a mutual understanding that I will never get in the way of him being a manager, and He'll never get in the way of me representing Pilots.
I really hope that you educate yourself on these issues. If you need help, I'm always here.
Frats,
Ben
412/716-8208
That aside, read your own post. Absolutely NOTHING your said is truthful or coherent.
My hope is that you might have a friend who is more educated in this regard. I hope he/she helps you understand some of the facts on the issue. If you wish to educate yourself, hear is the documentation that you should peruse:
-The initial displacement was for 350, not 150, even if done in three rounds; basic arithmetic. Read Howard's letters on the subject "base realignment/IAH Displacements.
-The MEC has already given very specific "deals" to only the Pilots of SEA, ORD and LAX. The 171 resolution would give grandfather rights to ALL United Pilots. Read the grandfather rights resolution and LOA 14.
Lastly, this incessant libel you guys drivel about Muir and I being buddies is a lie probably founded on the fact that I have an outstanding record of picking up the phone and getting Pilots out of trouble without the Pilot ever having to come to the flight office. There is a certain sub-group in our ranks who are actually disappointed when I call and tell them that their issue has been handled and there is no need for them to report to the flight office. As a result, I now ask the Pilots if they want me to handle the issue, or would they like an investigatory meeting?
I know not where Rick Muir lives, what he drives, his wife's name our how many kids he has. It's all business. We have a mutual understanding that I will never get in the way of him being a manager, and He'll never get in the way of me representing Pilots.
I really hope that you educate yourself on these issues. If you need help, I'm always here.
Frats,
Ben
412/716-8208
06-21-2015 | 10:44 AM
#86
Ben Salley
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
From: Left
3 reasons. 1) Because my vice and I thought this resolution should come from the council. 2) we hadn't had time to speak to the ALPA Nat'l Attorney's since we were in session @ORD. 3) Politically, there was no way to get anything done as the MEC was in session and dealing with the recall of Captain Heppner that week...But I know the cheap shot you suggest. I've already volunteered to be displaced, should that be necessary.
To your first point, I'll let you speak to an IAH PI on that one. But briefly, All IAH 756 Instructors were told that their services were no longer needed and were displaced. Then after those guys recall rights were expired, the company changed their minds and offered 25 756 PI positions at IAH TK. They hired 25, 24 lUal + 1lCal. They subsequently fired the 1 lCal guy about a month later. Also noteworthy was the lCal displacement letters informed the displaced guys that they could use their bump to the 747 because of the fence. In the latest round of 787 PI vacancies, the company's position was that lUal guys could not bid 787 PI because of the fence. After MEC level complaints, the company removed the the fence restriction. In the company's defense, they only hired lCal guys for those positions.
Now I know you'll counter that they hired the lUal guys because they're obviously more qualified. But the truth is that the guys hired ended up training guys on the 764 (an oddball aircraft that really should be it's own BES), an airplane that none of them had ever flown. Then you say, "they're obviously still more qualified than the IAH guys who had been displaced". In no way do I suggest that the PI's hired were not qualified.
In short, we've already seen this move in IAH. I fully expect B-737 CA vacancies in IAH, after the grandfather rights expire. They'll probably wait at least 6 months to announce IAH 737 CA vacancies.
-Ben
To your first point, I'll let you speak to an IAH PI on that one. But briefly, All IAH 756 Instructors were told that their services were no longer needed and were displaced. Then after those guys recall rights were expired, the company changed their minds and offered 25 756 PI positions at IAH TK. They hired 25, 24 lUal + 1lCal. They subsequently fired the 1 lCal guy about a month later. Also noteworthy was the lCal displacement letters informed the displaced guys that they could use their bump to the 747 because of the fence. In the latest round of 787 PI vacancies, the company's position was that lUal guys could not bid 787 PI because of the fence. After MEC level complaints, the company removed the the fence restriction. In the company's defense, they only hired lCal guys for those positions.
Now I know you'll counter that they hired the lUal guys because they're obviously more qualified. But the truth is that the guys hired ended up training guys on the 764 (an oddball aircraft that really should be it's own BES), an airplane that none of them had ever flown. Then you say, "they're obviously still more qualified than the IAH guys who had been displaced". In no way do I suggest that the PI's hired were not qualified.
In short, we've already seen this move in IAH. I fully expect B-737 CA vacancies in IAH, after the grandfather rights expire. They'll probably wait at least 6 months to announce IAH 737 CA vacancies.
-Ben
Last edited by A320fumes; 06-21-2015 at 11:07 AM.
06-21-2015 | 10:47 AM
#87
Ben Salley
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
From: Left
I have absolutely NO problem with you fighting to reduce the number of displacements in IAH. The fewer the better. If your efforts actually resulted in fewer being bumped, then that's a great thing. But again, your resolution has the opposite effect I fear. As did the previous MOU 14. It significantly reduces the training costs associated with managements bad decisions. It lets them off the hook somewhat if they change their mind, and it makes the financial penalty for bumping much less severe. This crack team at manpower planning will undoubtedly step in it soon (this month they TDY'ed simultaneously into and out of SFO 737 CAP). I think they should pay max dollars for their miscues. Maybe a big enough cost to their mistakes will get them out the door
06-21-2015 | 11:23 AM
#90
Ben Salley
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
From: Left
I'll say something else on that subject. The MEC is not split on legacy lines. It is my belief that no elected Rep on the MEC would do anything to harm another LEC. In the last two years before the merger, I became increasingly frustrated with the lCal 7/4 and lUal 9/4 votes pretty much in perpetuity. That means folks are speaking and listening on this MEC. This MEC rarely has forecastable votes, unless they're unanimous. But MEC work is for the most part transparent. What goes on after the MEC adjourns is not.
One can't get somewhere unless they know from where they start. This Pilot group started in October 2013. While we need to acknowledge each other's rich history. "This is how we've always done it" doesn't promote unity. This is a new "we". The sooner we get there, the sooner reach the top together.
BTW, no Black vs Blue pro-stans issues in a very long time in IAH. Good work Guys.
-Ben
-Ben
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
