Knotcher

Thank you...jeez. Closure was in the contract and they carved around it. At least somebody gets it.

jsled

Ha. Go look at 8-E-7a and 8-E-7b. Different processes for displacements v "complete phase out". They are different and you know it. Your arguments sound like your SLI arguments...and we know how idiotic they proved to be. I suspect this stupid resolution will gain no traction with the MEC just as LCAL's arguments gained little traction with the arbitrators. Bring on da bumps. Look out below!!!

jsled

furthermore.....the 747 MOU came AFTER the company said they wanted to reopen a base that they had phased out. It did not come before or even during the phase out. Unprecedented. To close and then reopen a base. The IAH displacement, on the other hand, is just like all other displacements. same ol same ol. But hey, good luck. It would certainly benefit me and others if we get bumped out of DEN 76T FO, then secondary bumps out of DEN 737 CAP. I'll just bump to IAH 737 CAP while I wait for my grandfather rights to kick in back to DEN.

sleeves

Thanks for pointing out more areas that the contract already deals with base closures. Again because if these the MOU was not needed. Do you need a picture? Maybe with crayons?
I do not disagree that the heavy weighted LUAL MEC will shoot this down. Only special carve outs are gives to LUAL types.

gettinbumped

I'm going on what I have seen out of Ben and the way he has behaved during his tenure in IAH during the merger.

I would bet good money that it's not lost on Ben that if they put out a DEN A320 bid that LCAL pilots will be able to bid it as the LUAL grandfather rights expire. The fact that they are TDY'ing into DEN on a fairly regular basis means that a bid will most likely be triggered per the contract soon. That didn't seem to register a complaint from the IAH LEC.

I fully understand that things don't hit home until they happen to you. HOWEVER, "you" is ALL of us. Thinking that IAH is it's own separate entity is myopic in my opinion. The sooner we start thinking of ourselves as one pilot group, the better. The way I look at it, ANY time a group gets money from the company, it's a good thing. ANY time someone gets bumped or furloughed, whether LCAL or LUAL, it's a bad thing. Personally I think extending grandfather rights out to 24 months would be a bad thing for ALL of us. It would allow the company to retrain much more easily and cost effectively, which I contest will INCREASE the bumps in the future. The beancounters will plug the reduced retraining costs into the equation and see that they are able to bump much more freely with that in place.

gettinbumped

Really? Profit sharing post sunset?

Flyguppy

The MOU came about AFTER they said they were reopening the ORD 747 base after closing it a few months prior.

You and others seem to be ignoring that point.

If they turned around in 6 months post displacement and put out 100 IAH 737 bids....I would expect mec action then too.

sleeves

I am not ignoring that point. The contract has language to deal with displacements and yes, base closures are covered under section 8E displacements. It is still a carve out.

Like Leneski said, if they do not turn around and have vacancies in the next 24 months then nothing so be it, nothing happens.

Shrek

It will never pass the MEC so why argue about it........

Birddog

If they have vacancies in the next 24 months they should be filled per UPA Section 8.

If they have flying return to IAH in the next 24 months those positions should be filled per the C-171 resolution.

That's how MOU 14 worked.