Way2Broke
Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Posts
- 2,882
Dispatch, Training, IT, Customer Service, Flight Attendants, Pilots, Accounting.
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
USA JET Has Mass Layoff
- Thread starter Porky
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Dispatch, Training, IT, Customer Service, Flight Attendants, Pilots, Accounting.
Way2Broke
Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Posts
- 2,882
It sounds worse than it was, it was public knowledge that the plane was for sell, because it was listed in the standard publications. Also, at the time we had just acquired a new Lear Jet that was more suited for the job that the Falcon was doing. The Pax falcon is/was primarily used at the owner's discretion, and sometimes for crew swaps. It really was not used for 135 charters, so if it went away it was no sweat off our backs. Although, I enjoyed flying it because it had some equipment that the Cargo Falcons did not, like TCAS, Altitude Pre-select, Intercom, single point fueling, APU, and CF7002d2 engines. It was kindove fun to have the opportunity to learn about these systems that were not available to me when flying the line.
Way2Broke
Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Posts
- 2,882
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Hey, Have you ever heard of a more classy way of laying people off. According to this email from Chris Healy he already knew he would be firing all the Falcon pilots. Even with this advance knowledge he along with Danny Clifton made sure no pilots were notified until the day they we're fired. Had any senior pilots been notified they would have gladly taken a DC9 Fo slot or an ABQ spot as several went out too new hires. AGAIN JUST SHOWS WHAT A GREAT BUNCH RUN USAJET. Pilotyip is the next too go!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
That's cause Danny learned from the best at ABX.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]From the Los Angeles Daily Journal
[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"WARN Watch--
Employers Laying Off Workers Must Follow Notice Requirements"
by Richard S. Rosenberg and Eric C. Schwettmann
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Employers contemplating facility closings or reductions in force as a means of coping with the current business downturn must be aware of their legal obligations under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 2101, et seq., and interpretative regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Labor, 29 C.F.R. 639.1-10.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Overview. Generally, WARN provides that larger employers (those with 100 or more employees) may not order a "plant closing", or "mass layoff" until at least sixty calendar days after giving written notice to the affected employees, their bargaining representative (if any), the State Dislocated Worker Unit, and the chief elected official of the local government where the WARN event is to occur. 29 U.S.C. Û 2102(a). [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] For the WARN act to apply, there must be a so-called employment loss which results in either a plant closing or mass layoff. "Employment loss" is defined as (1) a layoff of more than six months; (2) a termination (excluding terminations for cause, voluntary terminations, or retirement); or (3) the reduction of work hours of more than fifty percent during each month of any six month period. "Plant closing" is defined as an action resulting in an employment loss within a 30 day period for at least 50 or more employees at a single site of employment or one or more facilities or operating units, within a single site of employment. The term "facility" refers to a building or buildings, while the term "operating unit" refers to an organizationally or operationally distinct product, operation, or specific work function (such as an organizationally distinct department or operating division) within or nearby facilities at a single site. "Mass layoff" is defined as a layoff at a single site of employment where at least 33% of the workforce and at least 50 employees are laid off for a period of six months or more.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] In determining the applicable WARN threshold, not every employee is counted. WARN specifically excludes part-time employees from the calculation. "Part-time" employee under WARN includes those employees working less than twenty (20) hours per week and those employees who work more than 20 hours, but who are employed for a total of less than six of the twelve months preceding the day on which notice otherwise is required. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] WARN has a ninety day look back rule to capture non-WARN events which, in the aggregate, exceed the WARN threshold where separate employment losses occur within a ninety day period, each of which involves fewer than the number of employees necessary to trigger coverage, but which add up to the WARN minimum, WARN notices must be given to all employees who have or will suffer an employment loss. This is so, unless the employer can demonstrate that the individual actions arose from entirely separate and distinct causes. 29 U.S.C. Û 2103(d). The aggregation rule requires the WARN notice even where there was no contemplation at the time the individual events occurred that the layoff would trigger WARN.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Notice. The regulations under WARN contain specific notice requirements, both in terms of the content of the notice and to whom the notice must be sent. Note also that part-time employees are due the requisite notice if they are to be laid off or terminated as the result of any plant closing, even though they are not counted when determining the WARN act trigger levels. There are four elements required in the employee notice, which must be written in a language understandable to the employee: (1) a statement as to whether the planned action is expected to be permanent or temporary and, if the entire plant is to be closed, a statement to that effect; (2) the expected date when the plant closing or mass layoff will commence and the expected date when the individual employee will be separated; (3) an indication of whether or not seniority ("bumping") rights exist; and (4) the name and telephone number of a company official to contact for further information. The notice also may include additional information useful to the employee such as information on available dislocated employee assistance, transfer opportunities, severance entitlement, retention bonuses and, if the planned action is expected to be temporary, the estimated duration, if known. Notice to the State Dislocated Worker Unit and to the chief local elected official have similar (but not the same) required elements. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] There are times when a full sixty day notice is not possible or desirable. While WARN does not contain any express exclusions, it does provide for a truncated notice where an employer's business is faltering, or if the WARN event is a result of unforeseeable business circumstances or a natural disaster. 29 U.S.C. Û 2102(b); 29 C.F.R. Û 639.9. In such an event, the employer bears the burden of proof that conditions for the exception have been met. The faltering company exception requires the employer to prove that the employer was actively seeking capital or business which if obtained, would have enabled the employer to avoid or postpone the shutdown and the employer reasonably and in good faith believed that giving the notice required would have precluded the employer from obtaining the needed capital or business. 29 U.S.C. Û 2102(b). The natural disaster exception includes floods, earthquakes, droughts, storms, tidal waves or tsunamis and similar effects of nature. 29 U.S.C. Û 2102(b)(2); 29 C.F.R. Û 639.9(c). An unforeseen business circumstance is a business circumstance that was not reasonably foreseeable as of the time the notice would have been required. 29 U.S.C. Û 2102(b). The relevant regulations go on to state that the unforeseen circumstances must be some sudden, dramatic and unexpected action or condition outside the employer's control, such as a principal client's sudden and unexpected termination of a major contract, a strike in a major supplier, an unanticipated and dramatic major economic downturn, or a government ordered closing of an employment site that occurs without prior notice. 29 C.F.R. Û 639.9(b) The test for determining when business circumstances are reasonably foreseeable states that the employer must exercise such commercially reasonable business judgment as with similarly situated employers in predicting the demands of its particular market. The employer is not required, however, to accurately predict general economic conditions that also may affect demands for its products or services. 29 C.F.R. Û 639.9(b).[/FONT]
[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"WARN Watch--
Employers Laying Off Workers Must Follow Notice Requirements"
by Richard S. Rosenberg and Eric C. Schwettmann
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Employers contemplating facility closings or reductions in force as a means of coping with the current business downturn must be aware of their legal obligations under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 2101, et seq., and interpretative regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Labor, 29 C.F.R. 639.1-10.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Overview. Generally, WARN provides that larger employers (those with 100 or more employees) may not order a "plant closing", or "mass layoff" until at least sixty calendar days after giving written notice to the affected employees, their bargaining representative (if any), the State Dislocated Worker Unit, and the chief elected official of the local government where the WARN event is to occur. 29 U.S.C. Û 2102(a). [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] For the WARN act to apply, there must be a so-called employment loss which results in either a plant closing or mass layoff. "Employment loss" is defined as (1) a layoff of more than six months; (2) a termination (excluding terminations for cause, voluntary terminations, or retirement); or (3) the reduction of work hours of more than fifty percent during each month of any six month period. "Plant closing" is defined as an action resulting in an employment loss within a 30 day period for at least 50 or more employees at a single site of employment or one or more facilities or operating units, within a single site of employment. The term "facility" refers to a building or buildings, while the term "operating unit" refers to an organizationally or operationally distinct product, operation, or specific work function (such as an organizationally distinct department or operating division) within or nearby facilities at a single site. "Mass layoff" is defined as a layoff at a single site of employment where at least 33% of the workforce and at least 50 employees are laid off for a period of six months or more.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] In determining the applicable WARN threshold, not every employee is counted. WARN specifically excludes part-time employees from the calculation. "Part-time" employee under WARN includes those employees working less than twenty (20) hours per week and those employees who work more than 20 hours, but who are employed for a total of less than six of the twelve months preceding the day on which notice otherwise is required. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] WARN has a ninety day look back rule to capture non-WARN events which, in the aggregate, exceed the WARN threshold where separate employment losses occur within a ninety day period, each of which involves fewer than the number of employees necessary to trigger coverage, but which add up to the WARN minimum, WARN notices must be given to all employees who have or will suffer an employment loss. This is so, unless the employer can demonstrate that the individual actions arose from entirely separate and distinct causes. 29 U.S.C. Û 2103(d). The aggregation rule requires the WARN notice even where there was no contemplation at the time the individual events occurred that the layoff would trigger WARN.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Notice. The regulations under WARN contain specific notice requirements, both in terms of the content of the notice and to whom the notice must be sent. Note also that part-time employees are due the requisite notice if they are to be laid off or terminated as the result of any plant closing, even though they are not counted when determining the WARN act trigger levels. There are four elements required in the employee notice, which must be written in a language understandable to the employee: (1) a statement as to whether the planned action is expected to be permanent or temporary and, if the entire plant is to be closed, a statement to that effect; (2) the expected date when the plant closing or mass layoff will commence and the expected date when the individual employee will be separated; (3) an indication of whether or not seniority ("bumping") rights exist; and (4) the name and telephone number of a company official to contact for further information. The notice also may include additional information useful to the employee such as information on available dislocated employee assistance, transfer opportunities, severance entitlement, retention bonuses and, if the planned action is expected to be temporary, the estimated duration, if known. Notice to the State Dislocated Worker Unit and to the chief local elected official have similar (but not the same) required elements. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] There are times when a full sixty day notice is not possible or desirable. While WARN does not contain any express exclusions, it does provide for a truncated notice where an employer's business is faltering, or if the WARN event is a result of unforeseeable business circumstances or a natural disaster. 29 U.S.C. Û 2102(b); 29 C.F.R. Û 639.9. In such an event, the employer bears the burden of proof that conditions for the exception have been met. The faltering company exception requires the employer to prove that the employer was actively seeking capital or business which if obtained, would have enabled the employer to avoid or postpone the shutdown and the employer reasonably and in good faith believed that giving the notice required would have precluded the employer from obtaining the needed capital or business. 29 U.S.C. Û 2102(b). The natural disaster exception includes floods, earthquakes, droughts, storms, tidal waves or tsunamis and similar effects of nature. 29 U.S.C. Û 2102(b)(2); 29 C.F.R. Û 639.9(c). An unforeseen business circumstance is a business circumstance that was not reasonably foreseeable as of the time the notice would have been required. 29 U.S.C. Û 2102(b). The relevant regulations go on to state that the unforeseen circumstances must be some sudden, dramatic and unexpected action or condition outside the employer's control, such as a principal client's sudden and unexpected termination of a major contract, a strike in a major supplier, an unanticipated and dramatic major economic downturn, or a government ordered closing of an employment site that occurs without prior notice. 29 C.F.R. Û 639.9(b) The test for determining when business circumstances are reasonably foreseeable states that the employer must exercise such commercially reasonable business judgment as with similarly situated employers in predicting the demands of its particular market. The employer is not required, however, to accurately predict general economic conditions that also may affect demands for its products or services. 29 C.F.R. Û 639.9(b).[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] There is no case which has addressed anything like the September 11 terrorist attacks and the resultant economic collapse in certain industries. Cases which have reviewed this exception seem to support a WARN exception. See Loenhrer v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 98 F.3d 1056 (8th Cir.1996); Halkias v. General Dynamics, 137 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1998). Both courts held that unforeseeable business circumstances existed under WARN when the defendants gave much less than sixty days notice immediately following the United States Government's cancellation of their A-12 fighter jet contract. The courts concluded that although the employer was aware that the government had concerns with the contract, the actual cancellation of the contract was not foreseeable a full sixty days before the cancellation occurred. Similarly, in Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union v. Elsinore Shore Association, 173 F.3d 175 (5th Cir. 1998), the court found that unforeseeable business circumstances existed when the New Jersey Casino Control Commission ordered the defendant casino to close, despite the fact that the casino already was subject to the Commission's control and a conservatorship had been appointed because of financial difficulties experienced by the Casino. Notably, in each of these cases, the employer had advance knowledge at some level that certain adverse circumstances existed. The court nevertheless held that these employers met the unforeseen business circumstances exceptions to WARN's sixty day notice requirement. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Remedies. Non-compliance with WARN can be expensive. WARN provides for a civil action by an employee or group of employees, or their union. Damages include backpay (including tips for tipped employees) to each employee who did not receive the requisite notice for each day of the violation, benefits under their employee benefit plans, attorneys' fees and court costs at the court's discretion. There is also a $500 per day civil penalty. However, employer good faith can be a mitigating factor for the penalty assessment.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Might be time to call your state Rep and let them know whats going on over there. It sure sounds like you might win if it went to court. The least it would do would get MANAGEMENT in a tizzy.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Sorry to hear that you guys lost your jobs.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Remedies. Non-compliance with WARN can be expensive. WARN provides for a civil action by an employee or group of employees, or their union. Damages include backpay (including tips for tipped employees) to each employee who did not receive the requisite notice for each day of the violation, benefits under their employee benefit plans, attorneys' fees and court costs at the court's discretion. There is also a $500 per day civil penalty. However, employer good faith can be a mitigating factor for the penalty assessment.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Might be time to call your state Rep and let them know whats going on over there. It sure sounds like you might win if it went to court. The least it would do would get MANAGEMENT in a tizzy.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Sorry to hear that you guys lost your jobs.
[/FONT]
Way2Broke
Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Posts
- 2,882
The problem with the warn act is that they would have had to lay off 50 people that have worked there for more than one year for it to be applicable, they layed off about 60 total, 48 of which have been there one year. Your only prayer is that you might be able to consider parking the Falcon as a plant closure, if you can convince a judge of that you might have a case. Never underestimate how slick a attorney can be.
I still havn't signed my walking papers because I can't get a clear case about my tuition reimbursement. They agreed to pay for it prior to starting the classes, and my attorney says that I am entitled to it. The cost of the classes about negates the severance for me. If they do decide to fight it we are prepared to do so.
I still havn't signed my walking papers because I can't get a clear case about my tuition reimbursement. They agreed to pay for it prior to starting the classes, and my attorney says that I am entitled to it. The cost of the classes about negates the severance for me. If they do decide to fight it we are prepared to do so.
canadflyau
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 2, 2002
- Posts
- 437
This precedent has already been set. ATA, Kitty HAWK, and more have been victorious with WARN ACT claims.
As an ex-USA Jetter so sorry to hear about this. I highlighted the portion above. You are qualified with 6mos of full-time employment and will examine EVERYONE USA Jet laid off in a 90 period in the entire operation.
Look, don't limit your thinking! Get with legal aid if you must, but let someone else knowledgeable examine the wrong doing. They will either get you 60 days of pay, or USA Jet may try to settle with the grievants to make it go away. These types of actions do not come without recourse, and USA Jet does not deserve an exemption.
The other thing is to get in contact with Jan at the Wayne County MI Works. Tell her you just got laid off and a pilot looking for training. Heck, tell her I sent you. In a month, after jumping through a few hoops, you will be getting training.
PM me if you need more info.
So sorry to hear about this, Jason
Last edited:
canadflyau
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 2, 2002
- Posts
- 437
canadflyau
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 2, 2002
- Posts
- 437
Randy is a great positive guy. A pleasure to work with and be around. Optimistic to a fault.
I haven't spoken with him in quite sometime, but I would have a hard time believing with good conscious that he will be sitting idly by and go along with or be a party with this course. This has to go against his grain and I bet he will be out by his own fruition.
Just my guess.
Amish RakeFight
Registered Loser
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2005
- Posts
- 8,006
No time to read the entire thread so maybe it's been said.
PilotYIP-
I hope your strong rhetoric will wane about not needing a college degree. If for only something to fall back on during times like this.
I won't turn this into a college or not hijack, but suffice it to say, ease up on prodding young guys to skip a few years of college so that they can be furloughed/terminated inside of a horrendous economy. And don't tell me about this is counter to gaining seniorty. The way things play themselves out, seniorty is not so secure anymore.
ARF.
PilotYIP-
I hope your strong rhetoric will wane about not needing a college degree. If for only something to fall back on during times like this.
I won't turn this into a college or not hijack, but suffice it to say, ease up on prodding young guys to skip a few years of college so that they can be furloughed/terminated inside of a horrendous economy. And don't tell me about this is counter to gaining seniorty. The way things play themselves out, seniorty is not so secure anymore.
ARF.
pilotyip
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 13,629
nothing against college
It has been posted that I am anti-college degree. Nothing cold is further from the truth. The country needs all the college-educated citizens it can have, its raises the level of knowledge to keep this as the greatest country in the world. Real degrees in business, engineering, the sciences, math, and medicine provide a graduate with marketable skills. If you are going to go to college, get a real degree from a real university. Do not spend four years getting a degree in something that does not lead to a marketable skill. The college degree has nothing to do with flying an airplane. BTW Got my grandson who became a pilot on Monday talked out of going ot college, he wants the trade school route.
Way2Broke
Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Posts
- 2,882
Couple of points.
You mentioned that USA Jet might try to settle, and they already did that when they offered a severance package that works out to be about 3 weeks of pay. Here is my problem with seeking a lawsuit, for one I need the money now, not a year from now when it goes to court. Hell, USA Jet might not even be around by the time it makes it to court. I'm not saying that if there is a lawsuit to be had and your interested in pursuing it you shouldn't, I'm just saying that I believe my time is better spent finding work and getting trained on additional aircraft, because I believe in about 3 or 4 year the flood gates are going to open up again and I am hoping that by that point I will be at my career job. I have age on my side, and I am trying to position myself for the opportunities that will present theirselves down the road. This includes finishing my degree (Yeah I said it Randy) Building quality flight time, and getting type ratings to put on my license and resume.
When it comes to getting the money for training I am already working on jumping through those "hoops" to get the funds for training. I figure that since everyone else in Michigan is on welfare I should get my piece of the pie. Unemployment in Michigan it now at 8.5%. That is up 1.4% from this time last year. The best thing that could possibly come from losing my job at USA Jet is that I can move away from YIP to a place where you can feel more comfortable that your not going to get shot on your own front porch. I'm going to miss working along side the hardest working pilot group I have ever seen. Talk about a group of people that always went the extra mile to get the job done. Any employer would be stupid not to interview someone that "did time" at USA Jet. If you can handle the kind of BS that USA Jet could throw at you, you can handle anything this career can throw at you.
canadflyau
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 2, 2002
- Posts
- 437
Look, I am no lawyer but this shows why you NEED representation as an airline pilot, but if you signed your termination that would pay you 3 weeks... um that is not a settlement. And yes, I think following recent precedent you would see an expedited WARN act claim. 60 days pay or 3 weeks, I understand your need for money now, but if even one of you lets the process take its course you may find a second rightful payment of the other 39 days.
No one will argue that how this went down was inexcusable and grossly negligent of your rights as an employee. It will simply be up to it being determined, on a case by case basis, exactly how many people were laid up to before, during, and after (90 day window) to parking of the DA-20's throughout the whole organization. I know I am preaching to the choir, but also realize that when you are blindsided with getting laid off and being asked to sign a separation paper to get 3 weeks pay will hardly stand up.. that is duress... Anywho, off my grievance rep horse...
Lastly, I think you live near me. I found the Washtenaw/Ypsi folks to be slow and incompetent about getting training. We all know the sooner the better, its time critical. I worked with both Wash and Wayne, and the Wayne folks, Jan in particular has sent hundreds of pilots to get types. Go with the previously paved route.
Good luck to all of you USA jetters.
No one will argue that how this went down was inexcusable and grossly negligent of your rights as an employee. It will simply be up to it being determined, on a case by case basis, exactly how many people were laid up to before, during, and after (90 day window) to parking of the DA-20's throughout the whole organization. I know I am preaching to the choir, but also realize that when you are blindsided with getting laid off and being asked to sign a separation paper to get 3 weeks pay will hardly stand up.. that is duress... Anywho, off my grievance rep horse...
Lastly, I think you live near me. I found the Washtenaw/Ypsi folks to be slow and incompetent about getting training. We all know the sooner the better, its time critical. I worked with both Wash and Wayne, and the Wayne folks, Jan in particular has sent hundreds of pilots to get types. Go with the previously paved route.
Good luck to all of you USA jetters.
Last edited:
Way2Broke
Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Posts
- 2,882
I think that if someone puts together a class action there will be no shortage of laid off USA Jet pilots to sign up for it. Furthermore, the agreement we signed isn't worth the paper it was written on when it comes down to Federal Laws. You can't have someone sign a piece of paper saying it is okay to murder them and then murder them. You still broke the law, and nothing releases you from that. Some people think that if you sign the walking papers and take the money that your waiving your right to sue, and that couldn't be further from the truth. There are people pushing this issue, and when it all comes together we will see what we have to work with.
Hell ya it went down in a completely messed up manner! The fact they are running a full dc-9 initial class is even more messed up! No warning at all sucks, and moreover the method that they used to cut the pilots does not make any since.
For those that don't know, they went by seat, by aircraft, unless you had previously been assigned to the DC-9 in which case you were put back on the DC-9. Even if your currency in the DC-9 was more than 2 years expired and you needed a full initial. Of course, they did lay off DC-9 people too. Seems like a foolish way to "save" money. They have not told us if and when they do recalls how they would recall, but it is widely thought that it will not be by seniority. I think IF, and it's a big if, they recall most people will turn them down. The saying goes something like, "If you fool me once shame on you, if you fool me twice shame on me."
Can you PM me with Jan's contact information? I am working with Ypsi. In fact I have already jumped through all the hoops and have a appointment next week one on one with a case worker to approve my funds. But your right, it does seem that Ypsi has more red tape than Wayne. My case worker has never worked with a pilot before, but so far that hasn't been a big deal. I guess I'll know more on Wed.
Hell ya it went down in a completely messed up manner! The fact they are running a full dc-9 initial class is even more messed up! No warning at all sucks, and moreover the method that they used to cut the pilots does not make any since.
For those that don't know, they went by seat, by aircraft, unless you had previously been assigned to the DC-9 in which case you were put back on the DC-9. Even if your currency in the DC-9 was more than 2 years expired and you needed a full initial. Of course, they did lay off DC-9 people too. Seems like a foolish way to "save" money. They have not told us if and when they do recalls how they would recall, but it is widely thought that it will not be by seniority. I think IF, and it's a big if, they recall most people will turn them down. The saying goes something like, "If you fool me once shame on you, if you fool me twice shame on me."
Can you PM me with Jan's contact information? I am working with Ypsi. In fact I have already jumped through all the hoops and have a appointment next week one on one with a case worker to approve my funds. But your right, it does seem that Ypsi has more red tape than Wayne. My case worker has never worked with a pilot before, but so far that hasn't been a big deal. I guess I'll know more on Wed.
Last edited:
PUNISHER
You got any tinfoil?
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2005
- Posts
- 328
Now that's a kick in the balls!
Way2Broke
Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Posts
- 2,882
What?
Porky
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2005
- Posts
- 140
Looks like Yip is getting mad. Just because he does not know or get the inside info first. Not a pilot, look who's talking.
The only thing I'm trying to do is give a little info to people, true or not true. All the stuff I get comes from within the different departments inside this company.
The only thing I'm trying to do is give a little info to people, true or not true. All the stuff I get comes from within the different departments inside this company.
pilotyip
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 13,629
piggy opps porky
You are missing on many things, I have more inside info that you do and I am not sharing. You are an outsider so enjoy. BTW Me mad? has anyone ever seen me mad?
hammer2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Posts
- 11,256
Yip you posted or pm'd... can't remember, a scathing message. I think you were mad that day!
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
