Any "Latest & Greatest" about Endeavor?
12-18-2016, 06:36 AM
#9322
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: 6 Train - Panhandler
Posts: 2,001
Your CA authority doesn't extend past the Skywest thread. Please don't try to use it here.
And any guy with "turkey" in his name cannot be taken anything but seriously.
I recently flew with a CA wearing a Xmas tie and a red stocking cap. Obviously, standards are held by all!!
And any guy with "turkey" in his name cannot be taken anything but seriously.
I recently flew with a CA wearing a Xmas tie and a red stocking cap. Obviously, standards are held by all!!
12-18-2016, 07:55 AM
#9323
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: CL-65 captain
Posts: 2,244
12-18-2016, 08:59 AM
#9324
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: 6 Train - Panhandler
Posts: 2,001
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/A...ts/AAR1602.pdf
A good read if you're interested in these sort of things. This is last year's Delta runway excursion report. The results of which are highly disputed my DL btw. I have only read the CVR transcript and here are some of the highlights.
The CA seemed pretty concerned with landing conditions. It appears he wanted all the info he can get to make a good decision. The FO was apathetic about it, was prompting the CA to just go for it (jokingly), made smart alec remarks, was offensive to flight attendants and quite a pervert. At first they both were rusty on winter ops but squared themselves away with reviewing their content locker manuals.
At the last bit of the CVR, the wind check requested gave them a tailwind which wasn't previously reported. The two jets immediately in front reported good braking. The rest is history. Haven't read nor commented on the findings.
A good read if you're interested in these sort of things. This is last year's Delta runway excursion report. The results of which are highly disputed my DL btw. I have only read the CVR transcript and here are some of the highlights.
The CA seemed pretty concerned with landing conditions. It appears he wanted all the info he can get to make a good decision. The FO was apathetic about it, was prompting the CA to just go for it (jokingly), made smart alec remarks, was offensive to flight attendants and quite a pervert. At first they both were rusty on winter ops but squared themselves away with reviewing their content locker manuals.
At the last bit of the CVR, the wind check requested gave them a tailwind which wasn't previously reported. The two jets immediately in front reported good braking. The rest is history. Haven't read nor commented on the findings.
12-18-2016, 09:44 AM
#9325
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Captain
Posts: 464
Are you in New hire class or initial sim? If you are then the contract doesn't allow a new hire to change positions until finished with OE. So the first vacancy after OE you will be eligible.
Hi All
long time reader first time poster here. Just wondering if any EDV crew can give me some clarification as to the significance of the secondary positions listed on the award, I am looking to upgrade and have the 121 and total time qualifications and if I use the contract language regarding company time I come up with 450 hrs using the forecasting of 75 per month since bidding for CA. I am confused because the secondary seems to indicate unfilled CA slots and the reduction seems to be lower than my company hrs, Yet I wasn't awarded the upgrade.
What am I missing here?
long time reader first time poster here. Just wondering if any EDV crew can give me some clarification as to the significance of the secondary positions listed on the award, I am looking to upgrade and have the 121 and total time qualifications and if I use the contract language regarding company time I come up with 450 hrs using the forecasting of 75 per month since bidding for CA. I am confused because the secondary seems to indicate unfilled CA slots and the reduction seems to be lower than my company hrs, Yet I wasn't awarded the upgrade.
What am I missing here?
12-18-2016, 10:59 AM
#9326
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/A...ts/AAR1602.pdf
A good read if you're interested in these sort of things. This is last year's Delta runway excursion report. The results of which are highly disputed my DL btw. I have only read the CVR transcript and here are some of the highlights.
The CA seemed pretty concerned with landing conditions. It appears he wanted all the info he can get to make a good decision. The FO was apathetic about it, was prompting the CA to just go for it (jokingly), made smart alec remarks, was offensive to flight attendants and quite a pervert. At first they both were rusty on winter ops but squared themselves away with reviewing their content locker manuals.
At the last bit of the CVR, the wind check requested gave them a tailwind which wasn't previously reported. The two jets immediately in front reported good braking. The rest is history. Haven't read nor commented on the findings.
A good read if you're interested in these sort of things. This is last year's Delta runway excursion report. The results of which are highly disputed my DL btw. I have only read the CVR transcript and here are some of the highlights.
The CA seemed pretty concerned with landing conditions. It appears he wanted all the info he can get to make a good decision. The FO was apathetic about it, was prompting the CA to just go for it (jokingly), made smart alec remarks, was offensive to flight attendants and quite a pervert. At first they both were rusty on winter ops but squared themselves away with reviewing their content locker manuals.
At the last bit of the CVR, the wind check requested gave them a tailwind which wasn't previously reported. The two jets immediately in front reported good braking. The rest is history. Haven't read nor commented on the findings.
12-18-2016, 11:42 AM
#9327
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2015
Position: Inverted
Posts: 402
Will the company let you voluntarily move bases on the same equipment and seat between vacancies? Lots of seats not filled in the base I want to go to I just didn't bid for it on 16-06. I looked through the contract and didn't find anything that said I could not, but also nothing said I could.
12-18-2016, 12:02 PM
#9328
New Hire
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 5
I'm not a new hire. I have been with EDV for 6 months now and I wasn't expecting to upgrade this soon, but I have seen several return to work guys upgrading with less seniority than me. According to the contract (75 hrs per month since bidding for CA) I have more hours than the company time reduction on 16/06 which clearly states it was reduced to 388hrs to fill JFK200 CA positions.
My main question though is what is the significance of the secondary positions? There appear to be still a lot of unfilled CA slots in NY, and all the guys I have asked in the crew room don't seem to know either, I have also reached out to ALPA rep and crew staffing but haven't got any responses as yet.
12-18-2016, 12:38 PM
#9329
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: NB CA
Posts: 451
12-18-2016, 12:57 PM
#9330
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2015
Posts: 503
Hey There,
I'm not a new hire. I have been with EDV for 6 months now and I wasn't expecting to upgrade this soon, but I have seen several return to work guys upgrading with less seniority than me. According to the contract (75 hrs per month since bidding for CA) I have more hours than the company time reduction on 16/06 which clearly states it was reduced to 388hrs to fill JFK200 CA positions.
My main question though is what is the significance of the secondary positions? There appear to be still a lot of unfilled CA slots in NY, and all the guys I have asked in the crew room don't seem to know either, I have also reached out to ALPA rep and crew staffing but haven't got any responses as yet.
I'm not a new hire. I have been with EDV for 6 months now and I wasn't expecting to upgrade this soon, but I have seen several return to work guys upgrading with less seniority than me. According to the contract (75 hrs per month since bidding for CA) I have more hours than the company time reduction on 16/06 which clearly states it was reduced to 388hrs to fill JFK200 CA positions.
My main question though is what is the significance of the secondary positions? There appear to be still a lot of unfilled CA slots in NY, and all the guys I have asked in the crew room don't seem to know either, I have also reached out to ALPA rep and crew staffing but haven't got any responses as yet.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
