Two problems one finally has answers.

1) Demeaning, condescending, lack of respectful timely correspondence between the union and our JR members. OPEN ITEM.

2) Passover Pay. After a period of weeks and no answers from ALPA, I spoke with John Hunt in FedEx Contract Administration. He got me in touch with Len Kelly (ACP) who was the grievance chairman until recently and is knowledgeable of the situation. I will attempt to explain but I refer you to him for answers and if I make a mistake in transferring the information it is my mistake. Although I don’t agree with some of the unions actions/methods in this situation I appreciate Capt Kelly explaining and answering EVERY SINGLE QUESTION I asked. The union has chosen to give the JR guys the Heisman for weeks now and Capt Kelly did their work in about 20 min. Thanks Capt Kelly.

It has been the company’s practice to cancel a pilots bid only if he is awarded a new bid and he has not started training. In the case of the same aircraft and seat and only a “Base Transfer” the pilot has kept his “older” bid. So even though many of us held the same aircraft, seat, and domicile of the JR pilot; the precedent has been set for him to retain his old bid and therefore go to training before the senior pilots. Len is researching where in the contract “Base Transfer” is addressed. This is where I disagree, in my opinion it is a Grey area and I am surprised the union chose to not consider our argument or address the argument with us prior to a settlement.

For those SR pilots who did hold an ANC MD-11 bid, the company offered a monetary compensation to resolve the issue vice Grieve the issue. The union weighed all the factors in the case including cost and the two parties agreed on a monetary compensation for those ANC pilots from bid 05-03. It was a very small number of pilots when compared to the pilots on 06-03 who feel like training occurred out of seniority.

In the old case involving Grievance 02-02 (727 SO who had a DC-10 SO bid but never went to training because the company removed his DC-10 SO bid when he was awarded a MD-11 FO bid), that person apparently did receive some monetary compensation but the union chose to include his “intervening award” clarification in the recent resolution and therefore negates those of us who were removed from receiving pay for a seat in which you bid out of prior to training. (sorry for the run-on lengthy sentence but I am doing my best).

I felt like many of the problems associated with this controversial issue (including this Thread) could have been avoided with better communication. I suggested that prior to the resolution the union could have contacted all of us possibly involved, explained the situation, and possible paths of action. We agreed to disagree on this point because the union believes what I proposed was not feasibly possible. We have had almost 4,000 hits on this thread in 3 days. I personally think it would have been possible. But the bottom line is our union officials represent us, and we elected them, so whatever path they choose we have to live with it. If you disagree, vote differently or volunteer to do union work and make a difference.