FliFast

Biff

Good thing I drink Vodka. Coffee keeps me awake.

Actually, if someone has some viagara...well nevermind. I'll take that topic offline. And after some of the nonsense we eat in Asia, I wouldn't know if it's the exlax or the roast mushi mushi that made me give a code red to the lavatory.

But thanks for the advice.

Sideshow Bob

As to your so-called "age 70 march," I don't think that will happen in my lifetime. I became involved in age-65 when ICAO announced the change, back in March of 2006, which took effect in November of that year. It was clear to me that the age would change in the USA as a result of that.

The only change I see, probably in the next 5 years, is the elimination of the "one under 60" requirement internationally. I think that change will be welcome by all.[/QUOTE]

Phew...

That's a relief. So can I assume you'll go on record now of not cyber campaigning here or the B & G, or torturing your captains/first officer's/engineers with any age 70 drivel as you approach age 70?

I have a dream...

roadwarrior

From the IPNN several weeks ago, a weak, and barely discernable signal:

"..................
During the course of these meetings the Association presented a "no displacement" plan that—beyond avoiding displacements—also would create new vacancy positions across all domiciles and many fleets. It is our belief that this "front-loading" of staffing will help the Company man new aircraft that are scheduled for delivery this year and next. We believe our plan will lower the current stress on the system, reduce JA/MEF events, and clear the way for better pilot schedules increasing system reliability.
It is important to know that the Company has not disputed the Association’s numbers. The Company, however, makes an assumption that crewmembers will rescue the system by picking up high percentages of open time.

Will the Company conduct a displacement?............"

yes.

de727ups

Maybe the IPA needs to bring Sutton out to get some old skool action going and bring down the house of cards. I'd back it if it came to that, even though I'm a reserve and would take the brunt of the blow. Or maybe the house of cards will just fall on it's own. Or maybe we could take a vote and see how the membership feels. I'd back it then, too.

Roadwarrior, I understand your argument. I said that before. It just doesn't sway me. The folks that came before you have made their share of sacrifices long before you showed up. You make it sound like we should all fall on our swords over YOUR issue. It wasn't my place to tell folks how to run their personal life when I was in my second year here, and it's not my place to tell them in my 16th year.

roadwarrior

de727, it's not MY issue, it's OUR issue. And that's the difference between guys like me, and guys like you. I'm not telling anyone how to run their lives, but I am damn sure I know how I'll run mine.

If we have to wheel out some guy named Sutton to speak to the masses, then so be it....."WE" shouldn't have to though.....we do have an EB.

As for the "we built this airline" crowd, I respect them for the fact that they fought and won many battles as they taught the boxheads how an airline should be run. I am always amazed at the stories they tell. However, that does not entitle them to any more or less than any other card carrying member here, and WE should collectively be fighting for the betterment of ALL of US.....that's what a union is for.

I'm relatively new here ay UPS, but I've been doing this airline thing for awhile now, so the union 101 lectures don't go very far with me.

For me this isn't personal at all, and I'm VERY HAPPY here at UPS, make no mistake about that. I left UAL in the rearview mirror a long time ago, and am loving life.

In the end, you have your view, and I have mine. I'm pretty much going to hang it up on this thread......I'd only suggest you might want to contact the union, and talk to someone there, as I think my interpretation of the union's stance both from the IPNN memos on manning, and the GMM are "more correct" than yours. And as for taking the "brunt" as a reserve guy, I happen to know you could hold a line, so again, it rings pretty hollow. You're one of the guys who bids reserve, doesn't fly ("need the landings") and then picks up OT on your days off.......call it what it is.

Roadwarrior out.

Airbum

I don't follow the logic. If the reserves are so under utilizied that they are not getting 3 landings in 90 days it would seem open time could easily be absorbed by them.

My understanding was all know flying was put into lines?

roadwarrior

It is put into lines.

All the other (unknown) flying is picked up by people on days off, either line holders or reserve guys. On days on, there's nothing to fly.....

de727ups

"You're one of the guys who bids reserve, doesn't fly ("need the landings") and then picks up OT on your days off.......call it what it is"

I resemble that remark and don't have a problem with it...at the moment. I have a whole 18 hours so far this year...

I've made my point about four times. Ad nausum discussion to follow, I'm sure....

"If the reserves are so under utilizied that they are not getting 3 landings in 90 days it would seem open time could easily be absorbed by them"

Yeah, I think if there was no open time pickup the reserves could handle it. I averaged 6 days of flying (out of 30 possible) the last two bid periods. That breaks down to 3 days every 15. And three days could easily be only two legs. And I give all the landings to the F/O if he needs them more than me. Thus, we have problems getting landings in on reserve, sometimes, and I either look at opentime pickup or, like I did last time, doing a FNP for a guy, to make sure I get my landings in.

roadwarrior

Nope....got it, was just answering Airbum's post.....your position is clear.

Shaggy1970

I don't believe it! I have gotten four JA calls in the two days! How can anyone even talk about the "F" word? Please stop speculating unless you have some real facts!