dondk
Don't you wish
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 887
I thought we had one vacancy where they decreased the amount on the vacancy. It was about 8 months ago...
I thought the reason they gave was something to do with staffing and I don't recall an grievance over it either. The contract does not state anything about reducing the vacancies, only that it can be ammended. I guess you can guess DW's position on that one.
I am with Lear70 on that we should see about 40-50 more CA vacancies then we should see them based on attrition only (about 7% per year).
The only comment I am going to add.. Last fall the union came out with the whole campaign of upgrade now or lose it like they are now. 2 months later we got the announcement of 10 more jets. Not much but at least another 40 CA's. The union is doing the same campaign and there are still 65 options that have been converted but not built yet.
My .02 and not guaranteed in anyway, shape or form![Roll eyes :rolleyes: :rolleyes:]()
I thought the reason they gave was something to do with staffing and I don't recall an grievance over it either. The contract does not state anything about reducing the vacancies, only that it can be ammended. I guess you can guess DW's position on that one.
I am with Lear70 on that we should see about 40-50 more CA vacancies then we should see them based on attrition only (about 7% per year).
The only comment I am going to add.. Last fall the union came out with the whole campaign of upgrade now or lose it like they are now. 2 months later we got the announcement of 10 more jets. Not much but at least another 40 CA's. The union is doing the same campaign and there are still 65 options that have been converted but not built yet.
My .02 and not guaranteed in anyway, shape or form