Vacancy bid 14-07
03-06-2014, 05:33 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Position: B756 Capt Junior Lineholder
Posts: 136
1. Breaking? Pure Crap. The bus is very reliable. Maintenance is only as good, or as poor as Wacker wants it to be.
2. Spare Parts...whose responsibility is that? Airbuses's or Jeff's?
3. TV's. See number two above. The only busses without movie screens are the ones the new UCAL management team has retrofitted with the crap seats and without entertainment. More cheap pizza.
2. Spare Parts...whose responsibility is that? Airbuses's or Jeff's?
3. TV's. See number two above. The only busses without movie screens are the ones the new UCAL management team has retrofitted with the crap seats and without entertainment. More cheap pizza.
It appears previous management halted anticorrosion maint. It is being addressed...with at least 120 fifis on property through 2020 the company has no choice...
I admit to having "cockpit tray table" envy....once we get large numbers of A350 and B787 airframes we can finally retire old widebodies that lack individual seat amenities....the customers only care about what's available in their seat.....
03-06-2014, 05:46 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Position: B756 Capt Junior Lineholder
Posts: 136
They seem to be doing a lot of Florida stuff with the bus right now. And the are always breaking. JetBlue seems to get back and forth way more consistently.
Mechanics don't like seeing them down there, and apparently they don't have spare parts for them.
Also the airbus doesn't seem to have tvs. Don't think that'll work for a transcon
Mechanics don't like seeing them down there, and apparently they don't have spare parts for them.
Also the airbus doesn't seem to have tvs. Don't think that'll work for a transcon
The only guppy subfleet with transcon issues are the 12 -900's. All the other 250+ have none. Putting the 753's on Hawaii is a reflection of the large number of milage program tickets redeemed...by far the two lowest cost per seat mile
are the 753 and 739/739ER.
03-06-2014, 06:50 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2007
Posts: 125
Combination of those.
Most of it is because those two positions are the lowest paying ones, so when pilots get opportunities to move to higher paying equipment, they bid up.
Also EWR is the most junior base and many pilots have bid out of there over the last few years to LAX, SFO, GUM, CLE, DEN, IAH, ORD, and IAD.
Yes we are 60 bodies short, but normally that just a month of hires. I think the problem is that we have a training backlog.
The main reason for this bid is this is just a rebid of previously vacant positions, and there is a time limit to award unfilled bids to new hires.
So new hires will be getting mostly guppy and fifi positions out of EWR and then have to bid over to the other bases when they can.
Normally this doesn't happen, but its because of the furlough recall with lots of guys coming back into their previous base.
I'll be by next year there will be 3 or 4 bases new hires can go. Probably EWR, IAH, ORD, and SFO. They are generally larger bases and traditional new hire bases for both legacies.
Hope that helped.
Most of it is because those two positions are the lowest paying ones, so when pilots get opportunities to move to higher paying equipment, they bid up.
Also EWR is the most junior base and many pilots have bid out of there over the last few years to LAX, SFO, GUM, CLE, DEN, IAH, ORD, and IAD.
Yes we are 60 bodies short, but normally that just a month of hires. I think the problem is that we have a training backlog.
The main reason for this bid is this is just a rebid of previously vacant positions, and there is a time limit to award unfilled bids to new hires.
So new hires will be getting mostly guppy and fifi positions out of EWR and then have to bid over to the other bases when they can.
Normally this doesn't happen, but its because of the furlough recall with lots of guys coming back into their previous base.
I'll be by next year there will be 3 or 4 bases new hires can go. Probably EWR, IAH, ORD, and SFO. They are generally larger bases and traditional new hire bases for both legacies.
Hope that helped.
For the first time after ready one of Pilotgolfer's posts, I actually agree 100% with all of what he said. He was spot-on.
03-06-2014, 07:07 AM
#16
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
They seem to be doing a lot of Florida stuff with the bus right now. And the are always breaking. JetBlue seems to get back and forth way more consistently.
Mechanics don't like seeing them down there, and apparently they don't have spare parts for them.
Also the airbus doesn't seem to have tvs. Don't think that'll work for a transcon
Mechanics don't like seeing them down there, and apparently they don't have spare parts for them.
Also the airbus doesn't seem to have tvs. Don't think that'll work for a transcon
Here's the thing.... The 757 still kicks it's butt to fly. Much more fun. So I'm not an Airbus apologist. It'll do fine EWR west. BOS, not so much. TV screens in the cabin are all fine and good, but that technology is giving way. Even Virgin's CEO admitted they wouldn't have put TV's in the seats if today's tech had been available when they ordered their fleet. It's heavy and expensive. Sure the 737's are shiny and new..... and cramped. Simple math, there is more width in the A320 passenger cabin than the 737 or 757. And I'm pretty sure you don't want to talk about the cockpit comfort. If what you say is true, and they break all the time (it's not and they don't), I'm REALLY comfortable up there waiting for it to be fixed!
Cheap and plasticy? Yes. Goofy avionics? Yes. Reliable as a Boeing? Well, depends. More reliable than the 747, that's for sure! But much of that has to do with how much $$ UAL has decided to invest in them over the years. I haven't noticed any appreciable difference in the A320 reliability vs the 757/767 when I was on that. But it's a nice airplane, VERY comfortable, quiet, capable, and pleasant to fly. And it's here until 2025 which is a good thing for ALL of us
03-06-2014, 08:21 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: EWR 777 FO
Posts: 378
Really? Because they just announced they are investing more capital in the A320, changing a 777 line to an A320 line for in house Maint in SFO, and increased the life at UAL for the A320 to 2025. We will be first to paperless, and first with reconfigured cabins with the wifi/streaming TV content.
Here's the thing.... The 757 still kicks it's butt to fly. Much more fun. So I'm not an Airbus apologist. It'll do fine EWR west. BOS, not so much. TV screens in the cabin are all fine and good, but that technology is giving way. Even Virgin's CEO admitted they wouldn't have put TV's in the seats if today's tech had been available when they ordered their fleet. It's heavy and expensive. Sure the 737's are shiny and new..... and cramped. Simple math, there is more width in the A320 passenger cabin than the 737 or 757. And I'm pretty sure you don't want to talk about the cockpit comfort. If what you say is true, and they break all the time (it's not and they don't), I'm REALLY comfortable up there waiting for it to be fixed!
Cheap and plasticy? Yes. Goofy avionics? Yes. Reliable as a Boeing? Well, depends. More reliable than the 747, that's for sure! But much of that has to do with how much $$ UAL has decided to invest in them over the years. I haven't noticed any appreciable difference in the A320 reliability vs the 757/767 when I was on that. But it's a nice airplane, VERY comfortable, quiet, capable, and pleasant to fly. And it's here until 2025 which is a good thing for ALL of us
Here's the thing.... The 757 still kicks it's butt to fly. Much more fun. So I'm not an Airbus apologist. It'll do fine EWR west. BOS, not so much. TV screens in the cabin are all fine and good, but that technology is giving way. Even Virgin's CEO admitted they wouldn't have put TV's in the seats if today's tech had been available when they ordered their fleet. It's heavy and expensive. Sure the 737's are shiny and new..... and cramped. Simple math, there is more width in the A320 passenger cabin than the 737 or 757. And I'm pretty sure you don't want to talk about the cockpit comfort. If what you say is true, and they break all the time (it's not and they don't), I'm REALLY comfortable up there waiting for it to be fixed!
Cheap and plasticy? Yes. Goofy avionics? Yes. Reliable as a Boeing? Well, depends. More reliable than the 747, that's for sure! But much of that has to do with how much $$ UAL has decided to invest in them over the years. I haven't noticed any appreciable difference in the A320 reliability vs the 757/767 when I was on that. But it's a nice airplane, VERY comfortable, quiet, capable, and pleasant to fly. And it's here until 2025 which is a good thing for ALL of us
03-06-2014, 08:26 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: EWR 777 FO
Posts: 378
03-06-2014, 08:40 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,173
And last time I looked, the 787 is a wide body, so is the 767.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
