olympus593
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2005
- Posts
- 568
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Would Airways like a flow now? I doubt it. When they reach the bottom of the APL for 190 positions, they want to hire off the street. Lets say they need 50 190 FO's. Hiring off the street means 50 training events. Allowing a flow, means they still have to do those 50 190 training events. The pilots that flow will most likely be middle and junior CA's. Now they have to upgrade 50 FO's to replace those CA's. Then they have to hire 50 new FO's to replace the upgrading FO's. Thats 150 training events verses 50. That'a a huge cost. Not to mention they still need new FO's without any flow. Can they handle that training? Sure they can, but it's gonna cost a lot of $$$. Keep in mind, a major increase in training means more CA's will come off line to do the training, they too must be replaced with the subsequent upgrades and new hires to fill those positions as well. I think Airways would rather do just 50 training events rather than what would probably end up being over 200 events just to fill 50 190 FO slots. Now of course, if PDT was downsizing and getting ready to furlough, this argument would be much weaker....
2 question for you lear
If the flow thru is dead why does USair managment recognize there is a flow thru?
Why do you care if we flow up? what does it take away from you?
GET A LIFE!!!
If you don't care then go back to the major forum, I mean contract carrier forum for you.
How come I thought the flow thru was dead? Look like it's not dead after all...
So it only made sense when you flowed up, and now that you have, FYIGM kicks in and the whole scenario is a bad idea.
Don't let all of the facts get in the way, ALG. The protocols to flow back to your respective wholly owned was NOT PART OF LOA 91. It was part of LOA #TBD. We followed it to the letter when a windfall was about to happen and I was about to be furloughed due to a bump flush.
Lear Love please flow back to ALG if you like it so much, what part don't you understand about flowing back to your original WO? ALG doesn't exist anymore, the thuth hurt doesn't it? The flow back was never signed anyway!!!
This argument is true however the same could be said true to training for other aircraft. For example when a captain on the 73 decides to upgrade to FO on the 330.....
O come on, you thought that by me saying "easily hold CA" I ment that the upgrade or reupgrade was easy? Your more clueless than even I thought.
"easily" ment that I would be solidly within the senority number that hold CA.
AS IN: "that guy is senior enough to easily hold CA here", said the junior FO.
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]in accordance with the Flow Through Letter of Agreement (LOA #_tbd__) to be agreed to by the Company and the Association."[/FONT]
Also, the training at Republic (RPA) was the US Airways E170 training program with some alterations for RPA, i.e., checklists titles and format. They have attempted to keep it similar. Any RPA pilot would easily transition into flight training at LCC with the same type aircraft and training format. The blocks have only to be filled in to meet the FAA time requirements for the training curriculum.
How's RAH? Ever fly into CLE?
I have not let the facts get in my way. But you, unfortunately, don't understand the agreement. RE-read LOA 91, specifically the part you quoted above regarding LOA#TBD. The part about TBD LOA applied SPECIFICALLY to ML pilots that did NOT come from the CEL being able to flow-back. Earlier, in that same paragraph it states very clearly that a CEL pilot that goes to MDA and is furloughed WILL be able to go back to the WO carrier from which they came. Period. There is nothing about an agreement needing to be worked out. The only thing needing to be worked out was ML (read:NON-CEL) pilots being able to flow back as well. It needed a new agreement to allow that because all ML pilots were senior to all CEL pilots at MDA. But if everyone could flow back, should a ML pilot be senior to a CEL pilot on the PDT list? This needed clarification and thus a new LOA# needed TBD...
Just to save you time and allow those without access to LOA 91, here is the part in question:
"Pilots employed by a Participating Wholly Owned Carrier who become MDA pilots or US Airways pilots under this Attachment B may flow back to their respective Participating Wholly Owned Carriers. (see the period?, now read further, this is not talking about CEL pilots) US Airways pilots employed by MDA, if furloughed from MDA, may displace into positions at Participating Wholly Owned Carriers in order of their seniority as US Airways pilots [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]in accordance with the Flow Through Letter of Agreement (LOA #_tbd__) to be agreed to by the Company and the Association."[/FONT]
Pfft...irrelevant...you can teach almost anyone to fly almost anything![]()
Stop....![]()
If I was a 737 Capt, I would not "upgrade" to an FO position. That is a "downgrade" and a pay cut at LCC.
End of theory.
T8
Not true! I know about 3 Captains that took 330 FO postions for quality of Life issue!!
Many were fine with the pay cuts to hold a good line and be home more!!
So the theory continues!!!