Search

Notices

No more LOS

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-28-2016, 03:58 PM
  #21  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Default

Originally Posted by Birddog
Well there is some buffoonery---Flight Operations.

IAH 787 FO has been overmanned since Bid 14-02D which was a Flight Ops creation. Bid 14-02D pilots bid into there after SLI. There should have been a displacement then. Manning decided to first get the IAH 737 manning correct, was met with a flood of Flight Ops tears and backtracked. Manning being gunshy after that episode elected to let IAH 787 FO stay bloated after IAH 737 CA's bumped to the fleet. It got so bad at one point the FO to CA ratio was 4.0. With manning so out of whack instead of bumping 787 FO's some inefficient flying was manufactured for the IAH 787 to have a 787 CA bid to lower the FO to CA ratio.

So the company has been paying a couple dozen pilots 200K/year for two and a half years to sit at home rather than nipping the problem in the bud in the first place.

Rest easy though IAH 787 FO's on reserve. You can continue your extracurricular activities (well one can't), Flight Operations is too whimpy to try to bump you.

Dogg
No doubt this is an overflow from the situation created by IAH LEC and local flight operations(CP) and it still appears to fall along legacy lines. Forced flying to benefit one base over another use to be controlled by the MEC. There must be somebody in management that plays to the legacy crowd concerning this. I'm sure the MEC is being played by the OM people claiming to be still working on merger integration and asking for more time.
AllenAllert is offline  
Old 05-28-2016, 08:58 PM
  #22  
Not at work
 
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: 737 ca
Posts: 294
Default

Trust me. We do sleep well.
This situation is not unlike the den 737 ca after the 76t /airbus bump. Or the ord 76t for a while. This company has done the same for many subfleets throughout the years.. not the first time... wont be the last. So... ehh. If they bump, they bump.. not our first rodeo, and most of us just don't care.
blockplus is offline  
Old 05-29-2016, 07:26 AM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 439
Default

Originally Posted by blockplus
Trust me. We do sleep well.
This situation is not unlike the den 737 ca after the 76t /airbus bump. Or the ord 76t for a while. This company has done the same for many subfleets throughout the years.. not the first time... wont be the last. So... ehh. If they bump, they bump.. not our first rodeo, and most of us just don't care.
Exactly. Amazing that union pilots are also begging for bumps and better efficiency (less manpower).
El10 is offline  
Old 05-29-2016, 10:23 AM
  #24  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Default

Originally Posted by blockplus
Trust me. We do sleep well.
This situation is not unlike the den 737 ca after the 76t /airbus bump. Or the ord 76t for a while. This company has done the same for many subfleets throughout the years.. not the first time... wont be the last. So... ehh. If they bump, they bump.. not our first rodeo, and most of us just don't care.

Kinda hard to tell what your point is - it's not about rodeos or wearing your fancy chaps to impress your buddies.... It's more like the IAH LEC ploy to stay over-staffed on the 737 and force 737 flying into IAH at the expense of other bases until the 737 flying in IAH returns. The chap wearing, "us just don't care" crowd needs to understand it's not just about you - it's about ALL United pilots.

Who's next on the chopping block? CLE maybe........ Don't tell them about the "us just don't care" crowd.
AllenAllert is offline  
Old 05-29-2016, 10:33 AM
  #25  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Default

Originally Posted by El10
Exactly. Amazing that union pilots are also begging for bumps and better efficiency (less manpower).
Why is it you think IAH is special. Should we have 787 bases or bigger 787 bases in SFO, LAX, ORD or DEN. Forced flying takes away from bases to benefit others. Temporary forcing is one thing but Carve-outs to protect a segment of the pilot population is something else and YES the unionism of all pilots should stand and protect their and other United pilots senority.
AllenAllert is offline  
Old 05-29-2016, 11:04 AM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
hindsight2020's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Center seat, doing loops to music
Posts: 845
Default

So, what does this do to the IAH timeline for newhires? Actually, don't answer that, it was rhetorical. I've read all I need to read about United for a Texas domicile hopeful.
hindsight2020 is offline  
Old 05-29-2016, 11:18 AM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 439
Default

Originally Posted by AllenAllert
Why is it you think IAH is special. Should we have 787 bases or bigger 787 bases in SFO, LAX, ORD or DEN. Forced flying takes away from bases to benefit others. Temporary forcing is one thing but Carve-outs to protect a segment of the pilot population is something else and YES the unionism of all pilots should stand and protect their and other United pilots senority.
IAH is not any more or less special than DEN. Also no base "owns" any flying. The flying goes where the company wants, after recommendations from the SSC are considered. Spots have been offred on the West coast, so no one is being harmed.

Knowing your logic you be the first to cry company stupidity if they announced new flying out of IAH for next summer after completing bumps.
El10 is offline  
Old 05-29-2016, 12:25 PM
  #28  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Default

Originally Posted by El10
IAH is not any more or less special than DEN. Also no base "owns" any flying. The flying goes where the company wants, after recommendations from the SSC are considered. Spots have been offred on the West coast, so no one is being harmed.

Knowing your logic you be the first to cry company stupidity if they announced new flying out of IAH for next summer after completing bumps.
I've been crying stupidity on the part of the company since day one of the merger. Use to think it was just JS but now realize it was/is an infrastructure JS put in place or inherited. OM hasn't changed anything but does give better lip service.

Now about IAH and nobody being harmed - all United pilots are being harmed anytime special carve-outs are made for a special group/class. Just like the IAH 737 carve-out attempt, those days are over and for good reason. Sorry!
AllenAllert is offline  
Old 05-29-2016, 01:45 PM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Position: A320 FO
Posts: 262
Default

Originally Posted by hindsight2020
So, what does this do to the IAH timeline for newhires? Actually, don't answer that, it was rhetorical. I've read all I need to read about United for a Texas domicile hopeful.
Last few bids had newhires going to IAH on the guppy!!
Aviatorr is offline  
Old 05-30-2016, 05:43 AM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
Default

Originally Posted by cadetdrivr
Gone.

Two big problems:

1) The business traffic flying IAH-LOS is oil industry related

2) Nigeria is experiencing some extreme currency issues and UAL, along with other airlines, has a whole lot of $$$ locked up that the Nigerian government will not permit to be exchanged into dollars.
WOW! That's a big deal if a corporation (not just UAL) is having to deal with currency locking and currency manipulation. If the company can't trust the government, then the company simply votes with their feet. The end result is we can find a better place to send our jets to earn money. Nigeria, on the other hand....Not so much.
baseball is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Route66
American
6
04-08-2015 07:38 AM
CanoePilot
American
19
06-22-2014 09:43 AM
FlyinPiker
Major
12
12-18-2008 06:34 PM
GovernmentIssue
Flight Schools and Training
10
02-01-2007 05:46 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices