I've been accused of being long-winded. I admit, I have a hard time being brief sometimes. My block rep has specifically asked me to limit my e-mails to him to three paragraphs, and if his response requires more than one paragraph, he will reply with a phone call.

In a world where few people can handle concepts that cannot be condendsed into 12-second sound bites, I tried to keep this simple. Rather than risk confusing the discussion or losing a topic in the clutter, I broke out three specific issues into three separate threads for three separate, distinct discussions. Even then, I had to nudge one back on track.

I'm sorry if you think they're too technical or obscure. I asked an FPA board member about §4.A.2.b. in February 1999 while on a hotel standby at the Copthorne before we voted on that first CBA. Apparently the word furlough was too minute or technical or obscure for him, because he didn't realize there was an entire section about furlough further back in the book.

How many times have you heard pilots angry about language in the CBA and accusing somebody of not having done their job to make sure that the language was correct? What's the old saying? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

I'm doing the best I can to completely understand what this LOA contains so I can make an educated decision about the vote, and so that I won't be taken be surprise by language within.


As a matter of fact, I did. I sent an e-mail to my Local Council officers asking a question about the Local Council Message. The first response I got was a single sentence, "Is my answer gonna end up on APC?" Another one responded with a phone call, which led to a second phone call several days later. I wanted to know about the litigation that would be highly probable if the 767 LOA does not pass. I was told that he didn't pick the word litigation, and that he missed it in the final version, and that he believes it was put there during the communications review process by the attorney. He could not describe what scenario would lead to litigation, and he would not divulge what The Company proposed intially, or what they thought they would do with no LOA. (He could not recall if that information was releasable to the public.) He did commit to try to get something along those lines published, because he agreed with me that it would be smart for us to know our options when making the decision on how to vote. I still haven't seen that publication.

I was travelling during the first two hub turns, and will be on a trip during the next. I may be able to talk to the Negotiating Committee Chairman before this Tuesday's "Lunch with Fred" that coincides with the start of my next trip. I will listen to the Live Webcast while on a layover on Wednesday afternoon, and I will call in to the Live Call-In session the following Wednesday.

I have other questions, too, several from the video. I'd like to know where the LOA says that Field Standby Pay will be based on the guage aircraft that it is covering and that it'll be placed in the appropriate bid pack. The Negotiating Committee Chairman so states (at 5:00 in the video), but I can't find that language in the LOA. What will prevent The Company from putting a Field Standby on a B-757 trip knowing that there's a likelihood it will cover a B-767, but knowing that it will only pay the rate if it launches?

I'd like to know what criteria they envision the Scheduling Committee Chairman will use to allow B-767 flying in the B-757 bid pack. I didn't get much feedback in the thread. I would say never, but someone suggested other options. Will the SCC allow it during the first 6 months of the startup of the B-767 bid pack to make it easier to build lines? Will he do it because he likes the B-757 and wants to throw them a bone? Will he consider how it might affect the seat progression potential of pilots desiring a wide-body seat? Why is that provision there? Can it be abused? Will it be abused? How will it be abused?

The Negotiating Committee Chairman stated (at 4:07) "However, 757 pilots will be paid their current longevity wide-body rate if they block out on a Reserve Trip that contains at least one flight segment in a 767 or has wide-body pay rates attached to it. 757 pilots can also earn those wide-body rates if they block out on a Draft trip that contains at least one 767 flight segment or has wide-body pay rates attached to it." I'd like to know what that phrase means, "has wide-body pay rates attached to it." He said it twice, and it's on video, so I must assume it was used deliberately. Where does that phrase or concept live in the LOA or CBA?

I'd like to know why Scheduled Credit Hours is the chosen metric for detetmining the number of pilots required. Do you know what the ratios are for the current airplanes? Do they vary by system form? Would that metric work the same for the B-777 (long legs) as for the B-727 (relatively shorter legs). Four airplanes leave Memphis for four destinations. One flies 6 hours, and the other 3 fly 2 hours each. The one that flew 6 hours required 1 Captain and 1 First Officer, while the other three that flew 6 hours combined required 3 Captains and 3 First Officers. The manning ratio described in the 767 LOA would not work if the one airplane here was one type anf the other three were of the other. The SCH would be 1:1, but the pilots required would be 3:1.

Why not revenue legs? Landings? Duty periods? Days of work? (I think Duty periods or days of work would be more accurate.)

I may think of more questions, and I'll try to find answers.

I have always tried to make informed decisions, and encouraged others to do the same. In fact, if you don't bother to read the thing and inform yourself, I'd prefer you not even vote.


I'm flattered that you've taken the time to show your concern.






Sorry for being long-winded.






.