UAL Furloughees... We're supposed to have jobs

[Skippy]

I'm not disagreeing on one part of your statement, Skywest does fly other companies passengers. Last time I checked though, the Brasilia flying for United was being done under the United Express banner. The new planes are being flown under the united express banner. So if they are getting rid of one brasilia and getting one RJ, therotically, there is no need to hire any more pilots. Now, I understand that it is a qualifying aircraft, but no jobs are being created.

They are two seperate companies. If Skywest gets more airplanes and actually needs to hire because of that, I am all for hiring nothing but furloughed United pilots.

I don't see any reason a Skywest guy should be on the street so they can bring in someone for any other company.

So you want to take delivery of qualifying aircraft under the LOA and then not keep your end of the bargain by offering the U pilots the already negotiated and agreed upon positions---- well, if that isnt a selfish attitude---- I cannot believe you take the planes , than reneg on the LOA b/c it might put your own pilots on furlough-- well duh-- it creates positions for those that would have been furloughed in the first place-- so you see with the delivery of those planes it saves your own company's furloughs. WOW, seriously, wow! I am in absolute awe that you think this way.

 

[dodgerk]

If Skywest took on any UAL pilots, they would furlough them the next day because we are so overstaffed. How does it make any sense to hire United pilots when there is no room for them? The United pilots would go to the bottom of the seniority list and just be furloughed from Skywest. How does this not make sense to you? If we had need to hire, then we better hire United pilots, but until then we walk the furlough tightrope.

 

[Skippy]

am i the only one who sees this?

let's say you park 10 of your beloved brazilia's and took delivery of let's say 10 "qualifying" aircraft.

now you see it as a net of zero but it really isnt. what would have happend if you hadnt taken delivery of the qualifying aircraft? ding ding ding---- yes you would have furloughed 100% from Skywest.

Now under j4j if you took delivery of "qualifying aircraft" would you have furloughed more or less pilots? ding ding ding correct... less-50% less- however the united furloughees should remain - even if skywest has furloughs b/c they are bascally keeping your guys from being furloughed on an approx one for one basis. If U furloughees get 50% of the seats, then only 50% of skywest fo's get furloughed.

What is so difficult for you to understand?-- the fact that they would be furloughed anyway is moot-- b/c the U furloughees should always have jobs B/C their company is responsible for saving your own furloughees on an approx one for one basis----- the fact that you arent hiring-- is selfish and borderline arrogant and doesnt "fly"-- i understand the need to protect your own pilots, but this j4j allows that , and now the smell of "reneg" is in the air and that is unacceptable.

So in summary, you gladly accept the qualifying aircraft but when it comes time to have U furloughees get seats in them (when it is the very reason you accepted the qualifying aircraft that you arent furloughing more of your beloved own pilots), you cry we shouldnt furlough skywest pilots. How is that not a double standard.

what is it about this scenario that you dont understanbd or agree with?

 

[CRJ's suck]

am i the only one who sees this?

let's say you park 10 of your beloved brazilia's and took delivery of let's say 10 "qualifying" aircraft.

now you see it as a net of zero but it really isnt. what would have happend if you hadnt taken delivery of the qualifying aircraft? ding ding ding---- yes you would have furloughed 100% from Skywest.

Now under j4j if you took delivery of "qualifying aircraft" would you have furloughed more or less pilots? ding ding ding correct... less-50% less- however the united furloughees should remain - even if skywest has furloughs b/c they are bascally keeping your guys from being furloughed on an approx one for one basis. If U furloughees get 50% of the seats, then only 50% of skywest fo's get furloughed.

What is so difficult for you to understand?-- the fact that they would be furloughed anyway is moot-- b/c the U furloughees should always have jobs B/C their company is responsible for saving your own furloughees on an approx one for one basis----- the fact that you arent hiring-- is selfish and borderline arrogant and doesnt "fly"-- i understand the need to protect your own pilots, but this j4j allows that , and now the smell of "reneg" is in the air and that is unacceptable.

So in summary, you gladly accept the qualifying aircraft but when it comes time to have U furloughees get seats in them (when it is the very reason you accepted the qualifying aircraft that you arent furloughing more of your beloved own pilots), you cry we shouldnt furlough skywest pilots. How is that not a double standard.

what is it about this scenario that you dont understanbd or agree with?

I don't have a dog in this fight. From the outside looking in this post reeks of the entitlement mentality. If I could read the LOA that pertains to this, you might be able to change my mind.

 

[volav8r1]

You don't hear me whining about my job ever. I actually like it and prob make more then senior Super 80 FOs to boot. Granted its taken a while to get here but you won't see me applying for a furlough fodder position anytime soon.QUOTE]


Not that I really care, but could you please qualify this statement? A senior AA "80" FO is in the neighborhood of $110 /hr while you (assuming you are a "CRJ700" CA) would be around $85 to $87 /hr.

Not calling BS just yet, I am genuinely curious. I saw on APC the difference in monthly guarantee but that still puts a senior FO at AA making more.

Thanks for qualifying.

VOL

 

[waveflyer]

I don't have a dog in this fight. From the outside looking in this post reeks of the entitlement mentality. If I could read the LOA that pertains to this, you might be able to change my mind.

"entitlement"?

I could say the same thing about you- what makes you entitled to jobs that come from qualified airplanes? The jobs for UAL pilots were negotiated in. Nevermind that you have a job at all bc scope got so screwed up. And before you cry bs- put yourself in the UAL pilots shoes- what would you think if skywest outsourced all their Brasilia flying to Great Lakes? Honestly- really think and feel that one out. What would you honestly feel if skywest were furloughing and taking paycuts and you got towatch from the sidelines as Great Lakes triples in size?

On the mainline side- ALPA and ALPA pilots really screwed up on this one. They didn't negotiate seniority- and so I'd have to see the specific language.

I jus don't think it's right. Skywest guys are keeping their jobs ONLY because of the j4j agreement.

 

[Goodstick]

You don't hear me whining about my job ever. I actually like it and prob make more then senior Super 80 FOs to boot. Granted its taken a while to get here but you won't see me applying for a furlough fodder position anytime soon.QUOTE]


Not that I really care, but could you please qualify this statement? A senior AA "80" FO is in the neighborhood of $110 /hr while you (assuming you are a "CRJ700" CA) would be around $85 to $87 /hr.

Not calling BS just yet, I am genuinely curious. I saw on APC the difference in monthly guarantee but that still puts a senior FO at AA making more.

Thanks for qualifying.

VOL

Not a problem. Our workrules/pay guarantees etc are a little different then theirs and although the hourly wage may be less, we typically work way more hours. Just look at the pay guarantees.

I say this as I have made Mid 90's without too much effort in the past. For those that "work the system" take advantage of paid transition conflicts, work OT, Instruct, Fly on vacatiion etc, I have heard of figures of as high as 160's. Granted they are doing the work of 2 pilots but that is their choosing. When we were short of pilots the company actually paid double time for months even. We have recently furloughed and cut back our flying more so You probably won't see those numbers anytime soon again.

I have riden on AA jumpseats and have heard senior FO's complain that they have never broken 6 figures.

 

[JoeMerchant]

"entitlement"?

I could say the same thing about you- what makes you entitled to jobs that come from qualified airplanes? The jobs for UAL pilots were negotiated in. Nevermind that you have a job at all bc scope got so screwed up. And before you cry bs- put yourself in the UAL pilots shoes- what would you think if skywest outsourced all their Brasilia flying to Great Lakes? Honestly- really think and feel that one out. What would you honestly feel if skywest were furloughing and taking paycuts and you got towatch from the sidelines as Great Lakes triples in size?

On the mainline side- ALPA and ALPA pilots really screwed up on this one. They didn't negotiate seniority- and so I'd have to see the specific language.

I jus don't think it's right. Skywest guys are keeping their jobs ONLY because of the j4j agreement.

ALPA and mainline pilots screwing up on the scope issue does not constitute an emergency on my part. Regional pilots have been trying to get mainline pilots and ALPA to fix this mess for almost 15 years now...

The way I understand the agreement, they would be hired at the bottom of the list, and then management would be free to furlough any surplus pilots off the bottom of the list if they were overstaffed...You would be back at square one.

The United pilots wanted super seniority, but Skywest and others said No.

To answer your question about being in their shoes, we are all the time....DCI and UEX flying is constantly being moved from one pawn to another...When it is, we don't go with the airplanes...

 

[waveflyer]

So the question becomes- when will ALPA get on this fix and get everyone on one list? Right Joe?

Oh wait- no you'd want date of hire and would fight for the 'seniority' you currently have and would derail the whole thing- nevermind that every pilot at mainline went through a really trying interview process that you didn't. Lawsuits galore on all sides- and management wins bc of our egos

 

[Skippy]

i take back all i posted before: i finally got a copy of the LOA-- 5 positions per qualifying aircraft. 3 out of those 5 must go to small jet aircraft

the out is in paragraph 3a-- there are no additional new hire positions to be filled.

we suck and this LOA is worth complete schit-- thank you captain paul whiteford.

hell, we might as well save some time, money and manpower on this one, rescind the grievance- UA will not and can not win this one

in the famous words of billy madison-- you are now all dumber for reading my posts and may god have mercy on my soul.......

moderators, please end thread...