Originally Posted by
Pickuptruck
So a year 6 F/O on a base should have bidding seniority over a year 10 F/O who is based in Hong Kong? Makes sense. Then when you think back to the court case where the bases wanted all new command slots to only be available to those F/O already on the base, locking out Hkg skippers, it makes even more sense.
At the moment the company isn’t giving an inch, the bases have legal leverage through their contract on the base so something or someone has to give.
The based unions are doing the best for their members. As they should. If you’re on a base I’m full of **** because you are at the end of the day taking from your colleagues. If you’re in hkg I’m full of **** because the other (awkward) option is you stand up to this.
Everything I’ve mentioned has been there to be read on AOA and Yammer, burying your head in the sand is way easier though.
And calling me unhinged is easier than admitting the truth.
No Putruck, your first post was a rant and seemed unhinged. This recent post is much more sensible. No offense. We’ve all been there.
I think the problem is your assumption that ANY base (including HK) is entitled to ANY specific flying (layover destination, duration, etc) is wrong. Who gets what flying between separate bases is not a seniority issue. It’s determined by the CMP in conjunction with BAM to maximize productivity and minimize fatigue.
Just to be clear, whether NAM or Oz based pilots fly India is not determined by seniority. Whether EU pilots fly regional or all longhaul is not a seniority issue. Whether Kiwi pilots or HK get the Male layover is not a seniority issue. Within a base, of course seniority is important for roster construction, but not between bases. It’s like this in every airline that I’m familiar.
Btw, the AAOA rejected the TA, so the argument is moot. You should focus your energies elsewhere imo.