rush061272 said:
Ask your TW/AA buddies if they were asked about CQFO during the interview. Everybody knew that they will be CQ's when they interviewed, exept for the first two classes back in 2002.
This is gonna be fun. Your first two sentences and you're already quite wrong. I interviewed last Aug. We were told "no more cqfo's will be hired". It wasn't until second week of indoc that we got the news. Two furloughed TWAers, including me, were assigned to the EMB. After a whole hour of EMB groundschool I was pulled out and reassigned to the the J41. Yippee. The other guy was the lucky one.
I had people walk out of class when they were not made CQFO's. A lot of your compadres were coming in full aware of the situation. So do not tell me you and other CQ's are innocent.
So they knew they
might be cqfo's. BFD. You use the word "innocent" to imply some sort of improper action. All any of us did was accept employment at TSA. We didn't make ourselves cqfo's. You're channeling your anger at TSA in the wrong direction.
I flew with enough CQFO's in the right seat, and if I hear another DC9, MD80,717 reference I'll puke.
As long as you clean it up.
Some of the pilots in my new hire class (4.5 years ago) went to TW without finishing IOE at TSA now they will be back as captains because they flew the mighty Jet.
Hmmm. If flying a jet made us so qualified why were we put into a turboprop?
Is it CQFO's fault? No, of course not. Is taking a CQFO position ethical?
Time for some more fun! So to be "ethical" in your view I shouldn't have taken the position. That means quitting. You've got a lot of nerve telling me I should quit in protest when you aren't. And you're forgetting something very important: ALPA never told us we shouldn't come to TSA. Your version of ethics differs very greatly from the union that's handled issues far greater and worse than this.
Would you trust the person who has done it? That's for you to decide.
I've been on line here for over two months now. I have nothing but respect for all the captains and fo's I've flown with thus far. Sure, I've heard a few earfuls from fo's and for the most part I've agreed with them: TSA is screwing them.
Would you let that person act high and mighty superior pilot on line with 50 turbine PIC behind their belt becouse they had a TW job? You tell me.
Good point. Good thing most cqfo's don't act "high and mighty". Of course in your eyes the very act that TSA hired us condemns us.
It not that you are the CQFO they are mad at. It's the CQFO's attitude on line. You are not in TW/AA anymore, the CQFO position did take away the upgrade from a lot of deserving people. Act like it.
To listen to you people might actually think cqfo's have some kind of attitude. I think it's the other way around.
To answer you question about pilots with the upgrade time. Let me simplify it for you. Somebody already answered but you are not getting it. You are No 30 on reserve. 25 FO's ahead of you get upgraded. You are No 5 line holder. Or you are No 30 on reserve. Company hires 20 CQFO's, upgrades 5 FO's. You are No 25 on reserve. Now fast forward 2 years of this. Numbers are arbirtrary, but we did hire 5 CQ' for every CA we upgraded. There are more CQ' on 41 then CA.
Rush: I say this with all sincerity and no intent to inflame you, but I didn't follow your explanation at all. You lost me with the sentence, "Or you are No 30 on reserve." What does the "or" mean?
Again it is a company problem, but CQ's being company pawns and acting up the role does not help anyone.
Well, you're gonna find a certain percentage of any pilot group disagreeable. The fact is that I've never met most of the ex-TWA cqfo's before this job. You speak of cq's with attitude problems. How pervasive is it truly? I haven't heard much. Keep in mind just one bad apple can be exaggerated and all of a sudden become "many".
Dude