New Hire Class Drops
#3991
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2022
Posts: 339
If a new hire took the 330 in NYC, and wanted MSP. It would be a two year lock to get let’s say MSP 320/73N. Considering they stay on the B side. If the 330 was not in MSP then it would be a one year.
No idea if we are literally saying the same thing or you want to be asinine on the language/verbiage. Can you point me to the paragraph you reading, because I have never heard of this unicorn paragraph you speak of
No idea if we are literally saying the same thing or you want to be asinine on the language/verbiage. Can you point me to the paragraph you reading, because I have never heard of this unicorn paragraph you speak of
#3992
On Reserve
Joined APC: Apr 2020
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 12
#3993
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
If a new hire took the 330 in NYC, and wanted MSP. It would be a two year lock to get let’s say MSP 320/73N. Considering they stay on the B side. If the 330 was not in MSP then it would be a one year.
No idea if we are literally saying the same thing or you want to be asinine on the language/verbiage. Can you point me to the paragraph you reading, because I have never heard of this unicorn paragraph you speak of
No idea if we are literally saying the same thing or you want to be asinine on the language/verbiage. Can you point me to the paragraph you reading, because I have never heard of this unicorn paragraph you speak of
Again, the rule is whether you are able to hold the current aircraft, not whether it exists at a base. The entire point is to allow a new hire to get the base they want after a year if they can't do it in their awarded aircraft but can in something else.
So I'll try again. You are wrong. Clear enough?
#3994
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2022
Posts: 339
Someone already pointed out the paragraph, good job with doubling down with an "either or" that only presumes that no way you could ever be wrong though.
Again, the rule is whether you are able to hold the current aircraft, not whether it exists at a base. The entire point is to allow a new hire to get the base they want after a year if they can't do it in their awarded aircraft but can in something else.
So I'll try again. You have no idea what you are talking about. Clear enough?
Again, the rule is whether you are able to hold the current aircraft, not whether it exists at a base. The entire point is to allow a new hire to get the base they want after a year if they can't do it in their awarded aircraft but can in something else.
So I'll try again. You have no idea what you are talking about. Clear enough?
Last edited by Puddytatt; 03-21-2023 at 10:27 PM.
#3995
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
It's understandable for someone who has been around a while to not really remember how the new hire seat lock works, but sometimes you have to accept the possibility of being wrong.
#3996
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2022
Posts: 339
Not remembering it (I think it might be a somewhat recent change, but I could also be wrong), and calling someone asinine (extremely stupid or foolish) are two totally different things. I think it's laughable for them to draw that line in the sand.
#3997
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Sorry, forgot my /s in my reply to you.
Not remembering it (I think it might be a somewhat recent change, but I could also be wrong), and calling someone asinine (extremely stupid or foolish) are two totally different things. I think it's laughable for them to draw that line in the sand.
Not remembering it (I think it might be a somewhat recent change, but I could also be wrong), and calling someone asinine (extremely stupid or foolish) are two totally different things. I think it's laughable for them to draw that line in the sand.
And yeah, I don't think it aged like they thought it would..
#4000
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 136
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post