SO - Where's the SLI?
06-28-2016, 11:29 PM
#202
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: A330
Posts: 1,043
Just to point out there were many like Svergin that were LCAL who didn't buy into the pipe dream their MEC was passing around. I'm not trying to get in the middle of whatever is between you two, but he's always been pretty middle of the road on our UAL forum with regards to legacy line arguments. And like I said before, it's far enough in the UAL pilots rear view that most of us can look back and give an honest evaluation to who did what right. For example the CAL side did not propose fences. The UAL negotiatiators took the stance that the 747 was sacred and asked for fences. The arbs fenced it but also fenced the first 25 787s (of which some were LUAL orders). Now we have WAY out of whack seniority on it that'll take years to work out.
TLDR. Give him the benefit of the doubt. He's been through the process and he knows how it works. Best of luck to you guys getting it done so you can move on.
TLDR. Give him the benefit of the doubt. He's been through the process and he knows how it works. Best of luck to you guys getting it done so you can move on.
Thanks for the info
06-29-2016, 06:48 AM
#206
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Many cAAptains here not only allow, but encourage their F/O's to make PA's (in between their en route shoe shining duties 
). That statement was in jest to the exaggerated example the recipient presented regarding his opinion of my posts which was just another thrown rock in disguise. Actually, pre Chapter 11, F/O's here DID have required gate arrival PA's (at least that's what I was told by those who were here then 
).
). That statement was in jest to the exaggerated example the recipient presented regarding his opinion of my posts which was just another thrown rock in disguise. Actually, pre Chapter 11, F/O's here DID have required gate arrival PA's (at least that's what I was told by those who were here then ).
06-29-2016, 06:51 AM
#207
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Yes, even though the 10/5 business day deadlines will have passed by mid July, it might take at least a week or two should any of that info result in the arbitrators making minor adjustments to their draft ISL. THAT is when I think the real leaks will start and the ones with legs will have multiple "sources".
06-29-2016, 06:55 AM
#208
On Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2014
Position: 737 capt
Posts: 14
The Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement allows for the delivery of a confidential draft followed by a comment period of 10 business days. Initial committee comments are due to the panel no later than July 5, 2016. Each party will then have five business days to reply to submitted comments.
This was from the APA update..
SO....by july 5th..comment period is over..i would guess by the 15th it will be released....that gives 5 bus days plus 2 days each side for weekends..
12-20 of july...thats when it should be released according to this official email from APA
This was from the APA update..
SO....by july 5th..comment period is over..i would guess by the 15th it will be released....that gives 5 bus days plus 2 days each side for weekends..
12-20 of july...thats when it should be released according to this official email from APA
06-29-2016, 06:58 AM
#210
On Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2014
Position: 737 capt
Posts: 14
eagle fly...i doubt if the arbitrators will make any..but if so..very very very minor changes...to a draft SLI. After all they have been looking at data since the beginning of the SLI over a year ago..
The comments made by the respective committees will have little if any bearing on their SLI draft.
The comments made by the respective committees will have little if any bearing on their SLI draft.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
