That would be a nice trick if you could pull it off. Sorry, it's going to be a single bidpack as the language doesn't prevent it. Putting everyone on widebody pay prevents nasty surprises like going into 767 sub and getting a 757 trip.

Retirement doesn't need different language for us to avoid losing our benefits. It should be pretty easy to keep it center stage.

When Airbus and MD guys end up on the 767 it will be bad. We need protections we don't currently have to avoid a give back as they mix the Boeing flying. That's not negotiating with ourselves.

I'm guessing you see it as a zero sum game and some of "your" pay raise might go to keep 767/757 scheduling tricks at bay. Valid point but by the time we have 30 767's we'll be very deep in the shiite.

I believe the assumption of one bid pack is just that. The company has not said they will mix the flying. The only 2 facts are they have ordered 767's and the will share the same type rating with the 757. They have let us start all the rumors ourselves. Hell, now people are talking bait and switch FDA's, 767 bid everybody moves and bam hello 757. Possible sure I guess, probable I doubt it. We operate under a narrow body/wide wide pay and domicile system. This was unfortunately upheld under the 777 grievance but now with the addition of the 767 maybe a silver lining to that cloud. I understand that many crew members see the same type rating for 75/76 and then one pay rate sounding very appealing especially after age 65 and 4a2b. I say keep the pay system the way it is till the company comes asking. If the company tries to mix the flying grieve it. We have lost so many grievances based on "past practices" now you have 30 years of "past practice" of wide body/narrow body pay and system form. As I said earlier this is not a big issue for the company right now and they aren't going to waste any negotiating capital. They will let us negotiate against ourselves like we did with the A380. I believe the better course of action at the negotiating table right now is contractual language that forbids mixing narrow body/wide body flying. When the 767 shows up for sure then talk pay and not repeat our A380 mistake.

Well spoken.

A common type and no move toward a common bidpack? The sub and reserve system easily show that to be huge benefit to management.

Grieve what when they mix the flying? How is against the CBA?


Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is success. Sometimes it's a train coming at you.

Does this mean anything?

23. CREW POSITION

A specific crew seat, in a specific aircraft type, at a specific domicile (e.g., Captain MD-11 MEM; First Officer A-300 MEM).

I think that, along with the previous rulings on "widebody" vs "new aircraft type" pay rates...Would be pretty compelling evidence in the grievance. Yes, the MD-10 and MD-11, as well as the A310 and A300 are flown using the same type rating...But, they are also paid the same rate. Not so with the 757 and 767.

I think they need to come to an agreement with the association, to mix the different payscaled aircraft in the bidpacks.

Of course, I'm sure that will all get settled in our "discussions" before we get to Sec. 6 openers.:rolleyes:

I would hope that we work out the pay issue with the 75/76 prior to the aircraft showing up on property. If it shows up prior, we are going to play catch up with the company. I would bet the company would say Type means "Type Rating" in which case the 757/767 is the same. We should expect/assume the company will take this position; we need to always plan for the worst case senario and mitigate that instead of hoping... (show me a meaningful grievance that we have won lately. Even 4a2b looked like a no brainer - we basically lost; 777 told it was in the bag - we lost... (B team lawyers in our FDX ALPA office).

I expect the company to attempt to put 757 crews into a very short differences training on the 767 like CMV style sims that just show up on your schedule without a bid; guys will be forced to train up and the next thing we know the 767 will be flown for 757 rates and we will be playing catchup with a mixed bid pack. Sounds bleak but let's get proactive so we don't lose another one.

I am with you guys, separate bid packs, separate flying. make the company double up everything. 777 is the same as the 310, but different from the 72, therefore the 76 is different from the 75. these are the facts. no mention of the same type rating, that only helps in the sim and training, pay is a totally different thing!

Counting on a grievance to fix anything is statistically a losing proposition.

Counting on company fleet planning as accurate information on which to gauge our position is historically foolish.

We must proactively deal with this using two assumptions:

1. Anything that is left to the grievance process will be lost.

2. The 767 eventually replaces every Airbus and MD-10.

PIPE

spot on!!!

This is a great wish list, problem is it isn't what our contract says.

We didn't want the MD11andMD10 in a single bid pack. As I recall the FPA tried to grieve it.


Furthermore, name an airline that operates both the 757 and 767 where crews cannot fly both and are not in a single bid pack. It is a common type rating with the 757. Don't you think this was a big factor in the buying 767 over the A330F?

Should the 767 pay wide body rates? Absolutely

Will it? Section 26k will most likely be the avenue to tell us that answer.