Flowthru alive at LCC?

[olympus593]

Again Lear why do you even care? It's not taking anything away from you.

The flow back to PDT was never signed!!! that why they did not come back!!!

After all your bitching about the J4J back in the day you are now a J4J yourself, Hypocrite!

 

[wanabe_fo]

flawed argument

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....

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 then theoretically a 73FO must upgrade to capt, and a 73 FO new hire must be brought in (or in the new LCC a 190 CA or Fo must upgrade to 73FO, and a new hire 190 FO must be hired). If this was such an issue, then we would permanently be locked into a seat/ aircraft when we were hired. This domino effect of training goes on everyday in training in the seniority based airline system we work in. This will just be another domino.

The advantage to the flow is that LCC HR can look at any records they want as far as employment goes, not just what PRIA can give them. The fact that they are getting a known asset is worth something, maybee not the 4x in training events but there is value in knowing your new hire better than you could otherwise if they were off the street.

 

[LearLove]

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!!!

1.actually i don't think management has anything to do with flow thru, I just think they are saying that because if they state otherwise they know PDT would instantly fall to pieces much worse than it already is.

2. I really don't care, infact i wish we could realign the whole U senority system to one list including mainline, WO and contractors. Eveyone gets their DOH based on whe they went to their first 121 carrier. Then messes like this would just go away.

 

[olympus593]

If you don't care then go back to the major forum, I mean contract carrier forum for you.

 

[LearLove]

If you don't care then go back to the major forum, I mean contract carrier forum for you.

O you got me there, very mature.

 

[trainer8]

How come I thought the flow thru was dead? Look like it's not dead after all...

Mercy!....Mercy!!!...I can't stand the degenerative grammar.....:laugh:

T8

 

[JD2003]

My take is that flowthrough does not raise training costs. A wholly owned pilot who is not hired and trained by the parent mainline will find employment elsewhere and this will still trigger excess training events as well as engender more "bad blood" between labor and management.

 

[ALGFLYR]

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.

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]​

 

[ALGFLYR]

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!!!

Actually, you're not clear on how this thig really went down. All CEL pilots should have been able to flow-back to PDT because thats where they all came from. Thats right, ALL from PDT. Not one CEL pilot came from PSA. They were all 100% from PDT. None came from ALG. The first MDA class with CEL pilots was 7-5-04. On 7-1-04, the merger between ALG and PDT was official and ALG ceased to exist that very day.

 

[WSurf]

Really who cares!! Why should we all be fussing about it? If there's no flowthru that just means everyone at PDT/PSA runs off to other major carriers once there hiring starts up! Delta's hiring, United will hire off the street this summer!

Does a flowthru make sense? Maybe, maybe not!! But to have you guys (Former WO's) crying that we might just get one is sad!! Jeez, even if I were to flow to US Airways I would still seek a better job! I would think that US Airways will become a stepping stone for people to jump too UPS, Fedex, United, Delta etc........

 

[trainer8]

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.....

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.

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.

T8

 

[Sig]

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.

Thanks for proving my point. Is there some delusional drug you all take when you get a mainline number?

That little glyph immediately after my sarcastic point regarding the not-implied ease of upgrade, followed by a disclaimer in the King's English what read: I know what you mean- should have at the very least pointed out that I was kidding.

How's RAH? Ever fly into CLE?

 

[Sig]

[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]​

Now that was easy. You further furthered my argument further by proving what I said was true:

We followed the protocols. Period.

Having said that, LET'S FREAKING FIX THEM!

 

[Stuka Luva]

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.

Pfft...irrelevant...you can teach almost anyone to fly almost anything

 

[LearLove]

How's RAH? Ever fly into CLE?

RAH is fine, it has its days. Basically compared to ALG/PDT or MDA/Mainline it is 10% better, 10% worse and 80% exactly the same. As a relitively senior FO in the Rep system life has been good especially if you know how to use the pref bid to your advantage. However ask me again in a month when I'm a CA below all the natives and other J4J and I may have a diff answer.

Yes I've flown into CLE many times, in the Dash and 170. O funny haha I get it, your implying i crashed or ran a 170 off the runway there or something like that. Yeah you got me, it was all me.