lindsaya99
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Posts
- 219
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
Flowthru alive at LCC?
- Thread starter Swaayze
- 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
I figured you would see it that way. --No worries for the 600+ RPA and SA pilots -- half which are typed or qualified in the E170/190...some of which are looking forward to getting hired into the E190 at LCC.
They are counting on you.
T8
"The US Airways MEC has been informed that PSA J4J pilots have not been represented equitably by the PSA MEC and its committee structure and furthermore, have been subjected to what has been termed "cultural harassment..."" --December AAA phone message
The purpose of CD and MS at that AAA MEC meeting was to engage in flow through discussions. The PDT MEC reported this intent on one of their November MEC phone messages to PDT pilots. That was one of the reasons they attended the meetings.
In my conversations with the LCC J4J Coordinator, the AAA MEC has indicated to him that the present relationship and situation at PSA toward APL pilots is detrimental to any flow through discussions. He stated to me as recently as February that PSA and PDT have yet to put anything on the table that they (AAA ALPA) would agree to. He also stated that flow through discussions were not a priority for the MEC as the LCC/AWA seniority integration with LCC management is priority.
Again, ask your MEC.
WSurf
The Smack Down!
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2002
- Posts
- 3,690
Flowthru is not dead! US Airway has too much to lose in lawsuits, money etc.!!
T8 is just holding a grudge against the WO'ed pilots cause he didn't realize that a flowback didn't exist!! I passed on MDA to upgrade and have more options for my future! Curious if you went to MDA while you were a ALG FO?
And why are you so bitter? Even if I had gone to MDA and wasn't able to flowback, I would still support my follow pilots at ALG and PDT! Seems anytime someone post about the flowthru you jump right with your negativity!! It's kinda old!!
T8 is just holding a grudge against the WO'ed pilots cause he didn't realize that a flowback didn't exist!! I passed on MDA to upgrade and have more options for my future! Curious if you went to MDA while you were a ALG FO?
And why are you so bitter? Even if I had gone to MDA and wasn't able to flowback, I would still support my follow pilots at ALG and PDT! Seems anytime someone post about the flowthru you jump right with your negativity!! It's kinda old!!
Last edited:
WSurf
The Smack Down!
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2002
- Posts
- 3,690
Then that really explains the bitterness!!!!!
the point is, you guys (WO'd, ones that have been around for a few years) should be able to look at this guys profile and have enough common sence to see he (T8) is/was a rather senior ALG guy (hence the shorts and dash types) that took the bid to MDA and is now a J4J capt at Rep.
If you don't have enough knowledge of the situation to atleast figure this out then how can anyone trust your info/statements pertaining to flowthru? See what I mean jellybean? Atleast get your a$$ in the ballpark first then we will talk.
If you don't have enough knowledge of the situation to atleast figure this out then how can anyone trust your info/statements pertaining to flowthru? See what I mean jellybean? Atleast get your a$$ in the ballpark first then we will talk.
WSurf
The Smack Down!
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2002
- Posts
- 3,690
Didn't realize those profiles were 100% accurate!!! Jeez, didn't know that we had so many Shuttle Commanders that Hung out on FlightInfo!! Know what I mean Jellybean!!!!
Plus poor T8's career didn't seem to set the world on fire! 14k of hours to run over to MDA for a 30.00hr job!! Man, he missed the boat!!!
Hence the bitterness!!!
Last edited:
WSurf
The Smack Down!
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2002
- Posts
- 3,690
Finally!! Some support!!! Thanks!
why all the bitterness? it seems as though everything worked out pretty darn well for you MDA guys - APL seniority number and J4J captain slot. It was not the decision of the Piedmont pilot group to not allow MDA pilots to come back. From what I understand not more than a handful of guys would have returned anyway. I'm sorry if you were one of the few. However, wishing an ill fate on all the good people still at PDT (probably many of whom you were/are friends with) is truely spitefull.
Further more, listening to you speculate as to the flow thru status when you don't know what you're talking about is getting old.
Further more, listening to you speculate as to the flow thru status when you don't know what you're talking about is getting old.
Flowthru HAHAHAHAHA!
lear24
Country pilot
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2001
- Posts
- 226
flamebait.
Not true. There is a Pref. Hiring loa still in effect. This LOA was signed long before J4J surfaced at Airways. If you have access to the ML agreement, take a look at LOA 79. It states that when Airways hires off the street, 1 out of every 6 pilots hired MUST come from one of the Wholly Owned carriers.
My two cents, for what it's worth....
Just over 100 CEL pilots flowed into MDA before hiring stopped. They were allowed to do this under LOA 91. LOA 91 also said if furloughed from MDA, they would flow back to their original WO carrier. Period. That was not allowed to happen. Many confuse the referenced LOA that needed to be agreed upon in regards to flow-back as pertaining to the CEL pilots that flowed into MDA, not the case. The LOA that needed to be agreed upon pertained to ML pilots NOT from the CEL flowing back into a WO. That is a fact.
The CEL pilots were not allowed to flow back as agreed upon. That was a breach of contract. I think the flow is dead.
The question of whether it's dead or not will soon be a moot point. I think the WO MEC's are now realizing that. You see, the language in LOA 91 does contain language that would allow Current WO pilots to flow into Airways. Is that language still valid because of the earlier breach? Not a lawyer. But what I do know is that LOA 91 is attached to the AAA Contract. They are currently negotiating a new contract. I feel a new contract will be reached soon after the seniority arbitration is complete, which will be done in a few months. Once a new contract is signed, LOA 91 will be dead. Even though PDT and PSA has flow language in their contract, that language speaks of flow into a contract that no longer exists. The flow language does not tie you to the operating certificate, it ties you to a contract, the AAA contract. That will soon be gone...
Also of interest to note is the fact that when CEL pilots flowed into MDA, ALG was downsizing. Had it not been for the flow, furloughs were going to happen. The flow basically allowed for the reduction in force without furloughing, thus taking much higher paid pilots off the seniority list as opposed to the most junior pilots with the lowest cost. A win-win situation for Airways...
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....
Just over 100 CEL pilots flowed into MDA before hiring stopped. They were allowed to do this under LOA 91. LOA 91 also said if furloughed from MDA, they would flow back to their original WO carrier. Period. That was not allowed to happen. Many confuse the referenced LOA that needed to be agreed upon in regards to flow-back as pertaining to the CEL pilots that flowed into MDA, not the case. The LOA that needed to be agreed upon pertained to ML pilots NOT from the CEL flowing back into a WO. That is a fact.
The CEL pilots were not allowed to flow back as agreed upon. That was a breach of contract. I think the flow is dead.
The question of whether it's dead or not will soon be a moot point. I think the WO MEC's are now realizing that. You see, the language in LOA 91 does contain language that would allow Current WO pilots to flow into Airways. Is that language still valid because of the earlier breach? Not a lawyer. But what I do know is that LOA 91 is attached to the AAA Contract. They are currently negotiating a new contract. I feel a new contract will be reached soon after the seniority arbitration is complete, which will be done in a few months. Once a new contract is signed, LOA 91 will be dead. Even though PDT and PSA has flow language in their contract, that language speaks of flow into a contract that no longer exists. The flow language does not tie you to the operating certificate, it ties you to a contract, the AAA contract. That will soon be gone...
Also of interest to note is the fact that when CEL pilots flowed into MDA, ALG was downsizing. Had it not been for the flow, furloughs were going to happen. The flow basically allowed for the reduction in force without furloughing, thus taking much higher paid pilots off the seniority list as opposed to the most junior pilots with the lowest cost. A win-win situation for Airways...
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....
Sig
2017
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Posts
- 1,347
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.
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.
That's quite an accusation. But, it is not true. If you only knew....
Context, my friend. Flow through is dead with the current circumstances.
No bitterness here. I have never wanted to return to PDT. Once I left, there was no turning back for me. I made a career choice in leaving. But, there were others who wanted to return, but were unable because there was no agreement in writing and the PDT MEC hem-hawed and feigned excuses and came up with a proposal, which was a joke. Most PDT pilots know nothing of that proposal. In a conversation I had a member of the PDT MEC, he was very agitated that I had a copy of it, as it was leaked out by someone on the MEC and circulated on various web boards. It revealed the true colors and intent of the PDT MEC.
You would be surprised to know that I do support a bi-lateral flow agreement. In fact, I'm in the minority of J4J that do. Personally, I believe that pilots from the PWOs should flow to LCC, should that opportunity arise. But, based on the current proposals presented by the PDT MEC, I cannot support it, as others do not, and have verbally and by writ, opposed any proposal to the LCC MEC, NC, and J4J Coordinator that jeopardizes the seniority of US Airways Seniority List Pilots.
What I oppose is the methodolgy of the past and present PDT and PSA MECs to reject the current status of the APL list, their involvement with the AWA MEC in removing US Airways Seniority List pilots who were former CEL from the US Airways Seniority List, and the current attempt to remove US Airways Seniority List pilots from the APL. When this subject flares here on FI.com, I respond with factual, documented evidence. The best you can do in response is accuse me of being bitter.
T8
Sig
2017
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Posts
- 1,347
Indeed.
Was this an unsolicited proposal, or the response to the superseniority windfall? That's the real joke, and the AAA MEC are the only ones laughing. Furthermore, you admit what the problem is! Feigned excuses? That's not playing nice, Tate.
I can't say it enough, so I'll repeat it again... you give me a bilateral agreement, and I'll move outta my seat (or stay in it even longer, whichever the case) without a word. Period. End of story.
So why can't we get the danged protocols in writing? I think feigned excuses such as AWA integration are hampering that work.
***
Furthermore- and this is a point that a lot of us on this side of the chickenhouse don't see clearly - a cadre of easily (re)trained and highly experienced pilots would be one heck of an easy fix to our woefully understaffed airline! In LGA alone we have enough flying to award every seat a hard line as it's staffed right now. We ALL know who will fight against that logic to the bitter end, and there is no union out there that can change his mind.
Last edited:
This is exactly how i understand it. I would have never bid MDA if I had been told or researched the agreement and found that there was no flow-back. i did my homework in the summer of 2004 and the worse case I found out that I'd be able to come back to ALG/PDT with my Aug99 DOH. I came to this by reading the agreement and second by the ALG MEC chair telling me this. I believe his exact quote and I have witnesses who were in the SYR crewroom that day when he said it was, "LEARLOVE, the worst thing that can happen is you'll flow back with your DOH".
With that info inhand and the fact that i had been downgraded at ALG and it didn't look like I'd reupgrade anytime soon (even after the PDT merger) I bid to MDA. Funny thing is had I been allowed to flow back or never gone to MDA I'd easily hold CA there now. Gee wonder why the ALG/PDT guy played their slight of hand game and didn't let us go back.
Sig
2017
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Posts
- 1,347
Yes, the upgrade training here is a piece of cake. :erm: I know what you mean, but don't think you'd be in high cotton.
How many upgrades have occurred in the past three years?
olympus593
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2005
- Posts
- 568
olympus593
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2005
- Posts
- 568
DP has made it very clear to the LCC MEC and to pilots attending the "Crew News" video broadcasts that the issue of training costs is a huge item for mangement.
T8
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.
olympus593
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2005
- Posts
- 568
How come I thought the flow thru was dead? Look like it's not dead after all...
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:
