In the event of a excess bid, the HKG CA passover pay option is likely to still be available to a lot of people, just as it was in 08-03 before it was canceled.
For example, any of the MEM Bus Captains excessed out of their position who are senior to AS and too junior to hold -11 CA (which would likely be all of them), can bid HKG CA @ 100% to retain their widebody CA pay rate. To mitigate that, the company would have to put the "1" in the HKG CA slot and flush out half the people already there, and they seem(ed) reluctant to excess out of an FDA, especially captains who are already there.
In any case, I have my fingers crossed for a tiny to zip-sized excess bid.
Can't flush out of a FDA:
24.C.6.c If an excessed pilot is awarded or assigned a crew position that is also in excess, the number of pilots to be excessed from that crew position may be increased accordingly; provided, however, no pilot may be awarded or assigned a crew position at an FDA base that would cause an excess at that base.
You can increase manning into an FDA or you can excess out of an FDA but you cant excess and put new people in.
Advertising above will not show if you are a registered user.
Doesnt make any sense to me for FedEx to buy your house in ANC and give you a move pkg and buy a Mem FO's house to move to ANC just to make 450 FE's like the last bid. And even if the only excess is the Airbus what if a good percentage of Airbus FO's bid ANC?
Not to mention HKG passover pay.
Will be a strange bid.
------------------------------------
Shhhhh---don't mess this one up! "Great news, honey, FedEx is gonna buy our house--now start looking for a place in Anchorage--Dad's gonna fish all summer for salmon, instead of catfish!"
So if this bid closes and is filled without a pay rate, I would love to see an LOA setting the pay rate at narrow body pay for four years (that's age sixty-one + 4, if you get my drift). In trade for this LOA, all other aircraft will get a small pay rate increase. ... insert cute smiley face of your choice.
------------------------------------
Shhhhh---don't mess this one up! "Great news, honey, FedEx is gonna buy our house--now start looking for a place in Anchorage--Dad's gonna fish all summer for salmon, instead of catfish!"
That's OK, there's a bunch of houses up north to buy too! Some of those guys would adapt to fishing for catfish just fine...
------------------------------------
Shhhhh---don't mess this one up! "Great news, honey, FedEx is gonna buy our house--now start looking for a place in Anchorage--Dad's gonna fish all summer for salmon, instead of catfish!"
What about the other 9 months?
__________________
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
24.C.6.c If an excessed pilot is awarded or assigned a crew position that is also in excess, the number of pilots to be excessed from that crew position may be increased accordingly; provided, however, no pilot may be awarded or assigned a crew position at an FDA base that would cause an excess at that base.
You can increase manning into an FDA or you can excess out of an FDA but you cant excess and put new people in.
This is exactly why they place the "1" in every position. By placing it in an FDA, an excess already exists. Therefore excessing into the FDA does not "cause" the excess. It already existed... Then, IAW the CBA, the "number of pilots to be excessed from that crew position may be increased accordingly".
This is what they did in 08-03. All that language does is protect FDA based pilots from a secondary excess where no excess previously existed. By building in an excess, with the "1", they have found a loophole in the language that gives them a pseudo bump n' flush...
At least this is my understanding from the last excess attempt ....
Last edited by livindadream; 11-18-2008 at 09:15 AM.
This is exactly why they place the "1" in every position. By placing it in an FDA, an excess already exists. Therefore excessing into the FDA does not "cause" the excess. It already existed... Then, IAW the CBA, the "number of pilots to be excessed from that crew position may be increased accordingly".
This is what they did in 08-03. All that language does is protect FDA based pilots from a secondary excess where no excess previously existed. By building in an excess, with the "1", they have found a loophole in the language that gives them a pseudo bump n' flush...
At least this is my understanding from the last excess attempt ....
This is exactly why they place the "1" in every position. By placing it in an FDA, an excess already exists. Therefore excessing into the FDA does not "cause" the excess. It already existed... Then, IAW the CBA, the "number of pilots to be excessed from that crew position may be increased accordingly".
This is what they did in 08-03. All that language does is protect FDA based pilots from a secondary excess where no excess previously existed. By building in an excess, with the "1", they have found a loophole in the language that gives them a pseudo bump n' flush...
At least this is my understanding from the last excess attempt ....
good theory, but not exactly correct - they did not put a "1" excess in either HKG Capt or HKG FO on bid 08-03.
in fact, those bid statuses and the MEM 727 S/O were the only ones in the system that didn't have at least a "1" excess in that bid.
so.........thus far, the company has left the Airbus passover pay option on the table. it'll be interesting to see what they do "after peak"
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
