Thread: Alpa Fdx
View Single Post
Old 05-17-2007 | 08:39 AM
  #654  
TonyC's Avatar
TonyC
Organizational Learning 
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,948
Likes: 0
From: Directly behind the combiner
Default

Originally Posted by nightfreight

Our union will fight for the "slight chance" of getting retroactivity, but wouldn't flight for the "slight chance" of helping those MEM based MD-11 FOs. Kind of a double standard....

Originally Posted by HDawg

But seniority must be protected at all costs for the good of all pilots on the master list!!! Unless you are the 100 or so who deserve passover pay, you are junior or your in the majority opinion on age 60 then just shut up and trust your "leaders".

In case it might have been missed in one of my previous posts, allow me to reiterate. The issue of Passover Pay for domicile transfers was not an issue that was supported by contract language. To grieve that would have thrown hard-earned dues dollars down the drain. Did it suck? Yes. Did it seem unfair? Yes. Was it legal by the contract? Yes. It's foolish to grieve something that's legal by the contract, and that has been established by precedent.

When I was an ANC MD-11 FO, I bid the Memphis domicile. Prior to my transfer, MD-11 FO's junior to me were trained and activated in the MEM domicile. Was that fair? I don't think so. I had to commute to ANC for 3 months while junior pilots bid on the lines I wanted. Was it legal per the contract? Absolutely. Same concept. The contract was followed.


Retroactivity prevents a segment of our seniority from being assigned a second-class status. It protects the seniority of all pilots, not just a few.




.

Last edited by TonyC; 05-17-2007 at 06:52 PM. Reason: punctuation