Wanna bet some FDX >60 guys go back without a bid?
12-16-2007, 12:43 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Wanna bet some FDX >60 guys go back without a bid?
Just a hunch....
What could all the silence on how to work age 65 at FDX mean? The contract is clear. Over 60 and out of your seat, you have to wait for a bid to go back.
Who wants to bet over 60 guys just recently kicked out of the seat will get to go back without a bid? The economic incentive for the company to do this is big. Delay some junior CA candidate's training as a guy gets pulled out of 727 SO training to go fly the big iron again. You not only save the junior guy's training cost, you save the company from putting another overage to draw BLG for no extra benefit on the Boeing. Cha-Ching. Do it 10 or 20 times and we are talking some serious coin.
I'm betting the deal being worked is to define how long out the seat means no training vs. a little extra training vs. waiting for another bid (or passover).
What could all the silence on how to work age 65 at FDX mean? The contract is clear. Over 60 and out of your seat, you have to wait for a bid to go back.
Who wants to bet over 60 guys just recently kicked out of the seat will get to go back without a bid? The economic incentive for the company to do this is big. Delay some junior CA candidate's training as a guy gets pulled out of 727 SO training to go fly the big iron again. You not only save the junior guy's training cost, you save the company from putting another overage to draw BLG for no extra benefit on the Boeing. Cha-Ching. Do it 10 or 20 times and we are talking some serious coin.
I'm betting the deal being worked is to define how long out the seat means no training vs. a little extra training vs. waiting for another bid (or passover).
12-16-2007, 01:43 PM
#2
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 92
Here's a thought: the company ought to say those guys voluntarily bid down and therefore have a 2 year freeze.
They were lucky to have another seat to go to (unlike most of the passenger carriers) and it was entirely their choice. You can make the case that they got to abuse the seniority system once by moving down without the benefit of a bid. So, make them stay there until they've done their CBA 2 year stint and then they can bid out for their last 3 years.
They were lucky to have another seat to go to (unlike most of the passenger carriers) and it was entirely their choice. You can make the case that they got to abuse the seniority system once by moving down without the benefit of a bid. So, make them stay there until they've done their CBA 2 year stint and then they can bid out for their last 3 years.
12-16-2007, 01:49 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
That's brilliant!!
However, there are a lot of grey areas to this. We all know there is going to be another DC10 excess bid. Until reading your idea...I would have thought that the excess bid was their ticket back to the left seat. But, I like your theory. Where would they go?
However, there are a lot of grey areas to this. We all know there is going to be another DC10 excess bid. Until reading your idea...I would have thought that the excess bid was their ticket back to the left seat. But, I like your theory. Where would they go?
12-16-2007, 02:37 PM
#4
Line Dawg
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: 777 Captain LCA
Posts: 150
Its already happened. Guys that are already scheduled to retire are canceling their retirement plans. As a matter of fact, they will be built custom lines for Jan 08. 2 for sure, might be several more when the dust settles this month.
12-16-2007, 02:50 PM
#6
Trust but Verify!!
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD11 CRA
Posts: 684
"I'm betting the deal being worked is to define how long out the seat means no training vs. a little extra training vs. waiting for another bid (or passover)."
DW fought too hard for this to happen for the retro to give up now. He has an agenda here and I am sure he will follow it through by asking the company to let them come back without a bid. The other ALPA carriers were against or neutral on retro for S/O's but DW fought like hades to get it in. Just ask the NW members about this. Anyway, my gut tells me he is about to screw all the junior pilots one more time. I only hope that furloughs don't happen as a result. If we hire for the FDA's that makes furloughs harder to pull off. You know guys like FH won't give up his shot at the left seat again even if it costs some young pilot his job. Heck, he would probably get some satisfaction by allowing another pilot to experience furloughs like he has. Anyway, DW will finish this whole screw job with one final turn of the knife to the junior pilots by pushing for the retreads to come back en masse, without a bid.
DW fought too hard for this to happen for the retro to give up now. He has an agenda here and I am sure he will follow it through by asking the company to let them come back without a bid. The other ALPA carriers were against or neutral on retro for S/O's but DW fought like hades to get it in. Just ask the NW members about this. Anyway, my gut tells me he is about to screw all the junior pilots one more time. I only hope that furloughs don't happen as a result. If we hire for the FDA's that makes furloughs harder to pull off. You know guys like FH won't give up his shot at the left seat again even if it costs some young pilot his job. Heck, he would probably get some satisfaction by allowing another pilot to experience furloughs like he has. Anyway, DW will finish this whole screw job with one final turn of the knife to the junior pilots by pushing for the retreads to come back en masse, without a bid.
12-16-2007, 03:13 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Posts: 489
Originally Posted by FreightDawgyDog
I only hope that furloughs don't happen as a result. If we hire for the FDA's that makes furloughs harder to pull off.
So you are suggesting that the company would furlough those guys and then re offer the position back?
Just dont see this happening. A lot of fear mongering.
12-16-2007, 03:26 PM
#8
Trust but Verify!!
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD11 CRA
Posts: 684
"So you are suggesting that the company would furlough those guys and then re offer the position back?
Just dont see this happening. A lot of fear mongering."
Not understanding what you read does not equate to "fear mongering". I was saying that if they do indeed hire to fill the FDA, it would make furloughs less likely as they would have to start with them and then fill those spots with non furloughed pilots. That would be hard to do.
For the record, all we have heard about is how over manned we are. 200-300 pilots depending on the source. Add another 100 or so S/O's back to the left seat and displacements as well as furloughs would not be an entirely unlikely event. There is a difference between discussing possible outcomes that are even less pleasant than the Age change itself and fear mongering. Thinking a furlough isn't possible is ignorance. As a group, we need to discuss this possibility and see what the union's position is on it now, not pretend it couldn't happen. I think we have been surprised enough by our Union leadership on important decision's, don't you?
Just dont see this happening. A lot of fear mongering."
Not understanding what you read does not equate to "fear mongering". I was saying that if they do indeed hire to fill the FDA, it would make furloughs less likely as they would have to start with them and then fill those spots with non furloughed pilots. That would be hard to do.
For the record, all we have heard about is how over manned we are. 200-300 pilots depending on the source. Add another 100 or so S/O's back to the left seat and displacements as well as furloughs would not be an entirely unlikely event. There is a difference between discussing possible outcomes that are even less pleasant than the Age change itself and fear mongering. Thinking a furlough isn't possible is ignorance. As a group, we need to discuss this possibility and see what the union's position is on it now, not pretend it couldn't happen. I think we have been surprised enough by our Union leadership on important decision's, don't you?
12-16-2007, 03:28 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: A300CAP
Posts: 479
Originally Posted by Gunter
Just a hunch....
What could all the silence on how to work age 65 at FDX mean? The contract is clear. Over 60 and out of your seat, you have to wait for a bid to go back.
What could all the silence on how to work age 65 at FDX mean? The contract is clear. Over 60 and out of your seat, you have to wait for a bid to go back.
Thanks!
12-16-2007, 03:35 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Maybe I'm missing something too.
I'm assuming since there is not a specific exemption like the automatically allowed backbid to SO, it must be treated like every other change of seat that is not due to FAA physical or other temporary problems. There must be openings when we try to upgrade. These openings are defined by a bid.
We have also been assured that the over 60 crowd would have to wait for a bid to get back up front. I believe this came from the company and union sides.
The question may be whether or not awards to junior members from the last bid can be usurped by the newly available over 60 crowd.
I'm assuming since there is not a specific exemption like the automatically allowed backbid to SO, it must be treated like every other change of seat that is not due to FAA physical or other temporary problems. There must be openings when we try to upgrade. These openings are defined by a bid.
We have also been assured that the over 60 crowd would have to wait for a bid to get back up front. I believe this came from the company and union sides.
The question may be whether or not awards to junior members from the last bid can be usurped by the newly available over 60 crowd.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
