PDT News and Rumors
04-23-2010, 09:11 AM
#1682
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 238
From the most ****ed off REp in Union.
When we asked SF to pull back to 85 hours or below, he said, "No we will build them that high every time. Thats is our interpertation of the contract.." Hes absolutely winin the contract. and he refuses to change. Until the law changes or the contract changes, nothing forces him to change his way of doing buiz. There is nothing we can legally do.
When we asked SF to pull back to 85 hours or below, he said, "No we will build them that high every time. Thats is our interpertation of the contract.." Hes absolutely winin the contract. and he refuses to change. Until the law changes or the contract changes, nothing forces him to change his way of doing buiz. There is nothing we can legally do.
It is not the company's choice to build the lines to the credit they see fit. They MUST, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE build them per the contract. I have yet to hear a reason why it is not possible for crew planning to build the lines between 75-85. Our MEC should have filed a grievance over this situation, and the grievance should have made it all the way to the System Board of Adjustment, since SF will not budge on his "interpretation." Management should be the ones required to prove to the arbitrator why it is not possible to build the lines per the contract. I'm going to let everyone in on a little secret . . . they don't have a reason!
04-23-2010, 01:00 PM
#1684
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: F'd Back seat
Posts: 70
That's not good because there are a lot of people that are leaving, going to eagle, and not wanting to come back. So if that's the case then somethibng bad is happening to the company. Not to mention charlotte is booming right now with a/c being moved there
04-23-2010, 01:49 PM
#1685
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 936
Yeah, maybe they would recall when people leave. I think the idea was they were not planning on doing anymore because of the staffing and cheap ass Airways. Not sure though. Maybe someone can ask a question regarding this on ask piedmont and see what comes up. If it comes up. lol
04-23-2010, 02:12 PM
#1686
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: F'd Back seat
Posts: 70
What a great answer we would get too. And you can't put too much into what DJ says. Talked to CM in alpa today and was told crew planning wanted 40-45 recalled on this last round but company got scared with the LGA fiasco went down but hopefully it will go through the second time and our flying will go somewhere else and get booming again. I do know CLT is expanding a lot in the E Con so its gonna be interesting to see what happens.
04-23-2010, 02:38 PM
#1687
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 936
What a great answer we would get too. And you can't put too much into what DJ says. Talked to CM in alpa today and was told crew planning wanted 40-45 recalled on this last round but company got scared with the LGA fiasco went down but hopefully it will go through the second time and our flying will go somewhere else and get booming again. I do know CLT is expanding a lot in the E Con so its gonna be interesting to see what happens.
04-23-2010, 03:02 PM
#1688
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Ocho Driver
Posts: 32
Anyone watch the crew news lately with Parker at PHX about the US/DL slot transaction? Just watched the latest FA edition, and when he's talking about LGA he says a lot of the slots "are being flown now with ya know, turboprops...not turboprops, but with regional jets for the most part...to small markets"
Amazing how forgettable PDT is...
Amazing how forgettable PDT is...
Last edited by runwayrat; 04-23-2010 at 03:05 PM. Reason: format
04-23-2010, 05:58 PM
#1690
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 936
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
