Vacancy Bid
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
SLed
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 400
It was supposed to be out yesterday per official comm. Makes one wonder if they ran into some big uh-oh before posting it. Usually, if they miss the day it supposed to be out it a few days after so I wouldn't hold my breath. Shame is it impacts so many people across the board the angst is understandable.
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
#15
It was supposed to be out yesterday per official comm. Makes one wonder if they ran into some big uh-oh before posting it. Usually, if they miss the day it supposed to be out it a few days after so I wouldn't hold my breath. Shame is it impacts so many people across the board the angst is understandable.
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 168
Seniority is forever, sure. But it doesn't do you a damn bit of good when the bumps fill the place up for a year. Then the bumpee's are protected by the company shrinking the 767's through attrition and going fat on manning reducing vacancies. The S-UAL pilots may be in for a shock. We'll see soon. Hope I'm wrong.
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Posts: 940
Seniority is forever, sure. But it doesn't do you a damn bit of good when the bumps fill the place up for a year. Then the bumpee's are protected by the company shrinking the 767's through attrition and going fat on manning reducing vacancies. The S-UAL pilots may be in for a shock. We'll see soon. Hope I'm wrong.
SFO and also ORD need so many more 737 assignments as we go forward to efficiently fly the trips, that I think it will start with SFO bids and once whatever bumps have to happen from 14-02 have their first round complete, you will start to see other bids.
The other thing that I would expect to see is 320 bids in both EWR and IAH. Again the junior folks on 14-02 won't be able to hold Captain on the Bus for some time, so I don't think the bumps off of 14-02 will affect that either.
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
1. “Qualification Training”
The UAL Committee’s pilots in training proposed C&R (Number 1.3) is as
follows:
Pilots who, at the time of implementation of an integrated seniority list, are in the
process of completing or who have completed qualification training for a new position
(e.g., B-777 Captain or A-319 First Officer) may be assigned to the position for which they
are being or have been trained, regardless of their relative standing on the Integrated
Seniority List.
Two of the CAL Committee's proposed C&Rs address pilots in training:
Neither the implementation of the ISL nor the implementation or expiration of a
condition or restriction herein, in and of itself, shall cause the displacement of any pilot
from his or her then-current position (including a pilot who has been awarded a position
but has not commenced or completed training).
Pilots who, at the time of implementation of the ISL, are in the process of completing or
who have completed qualification training for a new position (e.g., B-777 Captain or A320 First Officer) may be assigned to the position for which they are being or have been
trained, regardless of their relative standing on the ISL. Pilots awarded new positions
shall be considered as “in the process of completing . . . qualification training for a new
position”, within the meaning of this provision, unless and until they have cancelled their
bids for the new positions, withdrawn from training, failed the training without further
recourse to further training, or successfully completed the training.
The CAL Committee’s training protection proposals include “a pilot who has been
awarded a position but has not commenced or completed training.” (Emphasis added).
That expanded definition would have the Board sweep into protective coverage some
400 CAL pilots awarded tentative February 2014 positions in the January 2013 CAL Bid
14-02. As of the close of these arbitration hearings, many of those individuals had not
even been awarded a training date, let alone begun training. Moreover, treating them as
“currently in” those positions or “in the process of completing training” would
unilaterally rewrite language mutually agreed to by the CAL pilots, the UAL pilots and
the Company (See TPA Section 5-B. Acceptance of the Integrated Seniority List, in
Appendix 1).
There simply is no fair and equitable basis for this Board to award what the CAL
Committee proposes. Under the guise of protecting pilots from displacement from
“then-current positions”, it would extend such protection to pilots who don’t actually
have such positions at all. In short, if granted, it would interfere with the fair operation
of the ISL forever by placing CAL pilots immovably in positions that their ISL seniority
would not entitle them to hold. For all of those reasons, this Board did not adopt the
CAL Committees' proposed C&R Numbers 1(b) and 1(c).
The UAL Committee’s pilots in training proposed C&R (Number 1.3) is as
follows:
Pilots who, at the time of implementation of an integrated seniority list, are in the
process of completing or who have completed qualification training for a new position
(e.g., B-777 Captain or A-319 First Officer) may be assigned to the position for which they
are being or have been trained, regardless of their relative standing on the Integrated
Seniority List.
Two of the CAL Committee's proposed C&Rs address pilots in training:
Neither the implementation of the ISL nor the implementation or expiration of a
condition or restriction herein, in and of itself, shall cause the displacement of any pilot
from his or her then-current position (including a pilot who has been awarded a position
but has not commenced or completed training).
Pilots who, at the time of implementation of the ISL, are in the process of completing or
who have completed qualification training for a new position (e.g., B-777 Captain or A320 First Officer) may be assigned to the position for which they are being or have been
trained, regardless of their relative standing on the ISL. Pilots awarded new positions
shall be considered as “in the process of completing . . . qualification training for a new
position”, within the meaning of this provision, unless and until they have cancelled their
bids for the new positions, withdrawn from training, failed the training without further
recourse to further training, or successfully completed the training.
The CAL Committee’s training protection proposals include “a pilot who has been
awarded a position but has not commenced or completed training.” (Emphasis added).
That expanded definition would have the Board sweep into protective coverage some
400 CAL pilots awarded tentative February 2014 positions in the January 2013 CAL Bid
14-02. As of the close of these arbitration hearings, many of those individuals had not
even been awarded a training date, let alone begun training. Moreover, treating them as
“currently in” those positions or “in the process of completing training” would
unilaterally rewrite language mutually agreed to by the CAL pilots, the UAL pilots and
the Company (See TPA Section 5-B. Acceptance of the Integrated Seniority List, in
Appendix 1).
There simply is no fair and equitable basis for this Board to award what the CAL
Committee proposes. Under the guise of protecting pilots from displacement from
“then-current positions”, it would extend such protection to pilots who don’t actually
have such positions at all. In short, if granted, it would interfere with the fair operation
of the ISL forever by placing CAL pilots immovably in positions that their ISL seniority
would not entitle them to hold. For all of those reasons, this Board did not adopt the
CAL Committees' proposed C&R Numbers 1(b) and 1(c).
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 168
Bumps are based off of TABs not activated pilots. So if a TAB has been assigned under the SFO MOU they can bump the crap out of SFO.
I don't know how many of the 400 are left untrained to bump. But you're getting setup for an expensive lesson.
I find it funny how S-UAL pilots always explain it away when they are possibly about to be hosed. Wouldn't you rather see the TPA, UPA, SFO MOU, and ISL enforced?
I don't know how many of the 400 are left untrained to bump. But you're getting setup for an expensive lesson.
I find it funny how S-UAL pilots always explain it away when they are possibly about to be hosed. Wouldn't you rather see the TPA, UPA, SFO MOU, and ISL enforced?
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post