Originally Posted by
FXDX
This is incorrect. Not every 75 FO has bid and held 76 FO, nor had their training delayed, so not every 75 FO is due passover pay. I understand your heartburn with the way the training is jacked up, but spreading incorrect statements doesn't help the cause. That is also why the company doesn't see it the way some people think they should, some people don't understand what triggers passover pay.
Bids are held once a year, which is insane. Perhaps if bids were held every month, I could see your point. So, here is an example. A guy arrives here just after this bid has closed. He didn't get a chance to bid the 767. Now someone junior to him is given a 767 slot. Should he get pass over pay? Not according to you, because he didn't bid the 767. Well, he didn't have a chance to bid it. So someone junior to him gets the 767 slot that he wants and you are ok with that? I thought ALPA was supposed to protect seniority at all costs, but I guess I was wrong.
Passover pay is supposed to protect the senior crewmember from a junior crewmember being given his rightful seat ahead of him.
If our contract is so screwed up that passover does not apply when you didn't get a chance to bid, and someone junior to you is given the seat you would have bid for, than it is time to fire ALPA and their "better than FPA lawyers" because they have not done us any good at all.
I say again, giving 767 slots to new hires is wrong and should trigger passover pay for every 757 FO on the property. My opinion, not trying to "spread any incorrect statements".