UAL/CAL ARBITOR ruling submitted on 70 seater
#23
And who said that only CO pilots have a problem with the 70 seat RJ. As a regional pilot I have a problem with it as well. I'd rather be flying the 70 seat RJ for CO.
Happy New Year Simsak! is that how you write his last name? don't even care to look up the correct spelling.
You know where in IAH you have that billboard that says "United agaisnt outsourcing" just as you are turning on JFK? you should put, Happy New Year Simsak.
Happy New Year Simsak! is that how you write his last name? don't even care to look up the correct spelling.
You know where in IAH you have that billboard that says "United agaisnt outsourcing" just as you are turning on JFK? you should put, Happy New Year Simsak.
#24
tdys from ORD now to fly the flights that were supposed to be done by the 70s?
#26
Banned
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 244
The integration is nearly a year away. So if they want to do it for the time between then and a jcba go ahead. More motivation for the troops!
#27
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
#28
If it was 70+ then this ruling is pointless. The RJ's going to CLE, IAH, EWR all have less than 70 seats. In the case or the CRJ-700 2 class,it has 66 seats to be exact.
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Driving to work & Looking Left @ the Surf!!
Posts: 727
I thought the issue was w/ 50+ seats. Limiting the 70+ will only get rid of the -900's right? This is a good start, but I would have liked to have seen the line drawn @ 50+.
Baja.
Baja.
#30
Just found a better discussion going on in the CAL/UAL Merger thread.. it answers this..
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post