DAY --- EXAMPLE #1 DUTY LAYOVER
FDX
a) ONT - HNL 7:40 FDX mandates a 36-hr layover by the 5th layover.
This is from an arbitration FDX pilots won (based on a tafb calculation).
18:00
b) DH CML HNL - NRT 10:00
12:00
c) NRT - Asia 12:10
12:00
d) Asia - Asia 12:10
12:00
e) Asia - Asia 12:00
15:00
f) Asia - ANC 13:00
12:00
g) DH P3 ANC - ONT 7:00
tafb = 155
No block was greater than 7:59
155 tafb = 41:20-hrs credit
155 tafb = 6.5-day trip (24-hr days)
This can touch 7 to 8 calendar days
DAY ---- EXAMPLE #2 DUTY LAYOVER
FDX
a) DH P3 ONT - ANC 7:41 FDX mandates a 36-hr layover by the 5th layover.
This is from an arbitration FDX pilots won (based on a tafb calculation).
18:00
b) ANC - NRT 9:25
12:00
c) NRT - Asia 7:59
12:00
d) Asia - Asia 10:00
14:01
e) Asia - Asia 12:00
12:00
f) Asia - Asia 12:00
12:00
g) Asia - NRT 7:59
24:00
h) NRT - ANC 8:50
12:00
i) DH P3 ANC - ONT 7:00
tafb = 198:55
No block was greater than 7:59
198:55 tafb = 53:50-hrs credit
198:55 tafb = 8.3-day trip (24-hr days)
This can touch 9 to 10 calendar days
Do not be distracted by those hiding from the truth by name calling.
Do not be distracted by those hiding from the truth by questioning if UPS will build such pairings/trips.
UPS has proven in the past via the Teamster Team drivers, Menlo and other situations to pull rabbits out of their hat to avoid contractual rules & compliance. The new network in Asia is fluid and growing by upwards of 15% per year; things can and will change.
Q: Why have I presented these examples?
A: The IPA has said during road shows, round tables and Hotlines that they are the official and correct source of information. They have put in print via the Flight Times and literature sent to our houses the same assertions while beating the drum of major improvements in international rest. These claims are not exactly true. International growth will affect domestic schedules and seniority.
When asked if a trip scenario is possible that would refute this misinformation they peddle, they stay silent. Others attack on a personal level since they can not refute the truth.
In these two examples, all the new rules were applied including the new “patterning rules”.
You can see that the IPA’s official claims of reduced occurrences of 12-hr layovers are inaccurate.
And for those wanting to compare our 4th contract to FDX's 1st contract:
NEITHER trip is legal to build at FDX.
Again, the trips are legal to build at UPS using the TA rules and current rules, but not at FDX.
What about the IPA's claim of new restrictions placed on 24-hr layovers? The next example will show you that this is not the case. Again this is legal to build at UPS, but NOT legal at FDX. The P3 DHs are from the new rebuilt bid packages.
DAY DUTY LAYOVER
FDX
a) DH P3 (747) ANC-NRT 9:00 FDX mandates a 36-hr layover by the 5th layover.
This is from an arbitration FDX pilots won (based on a tafb calculation).
Also exceeds FDX's max tafb of 313-hrs.
18:00
b) 9:00
24:00
c) 6:00
24:00
d) 9:00
24:00
e) 7:59
12:00
f) 9:00
24:00
g) 7:59
24:00
h) 7:59
24:00
i) 7:59
24:00
j) 7:59
24:00
k) 9:00
12:00
m) DH P3 (747) NRT-ANC
9:01
No block was greater than 7:59
336-hrs tafb = 89:36-hrs credit
336-hrs tafb = 14-day trip (24-hr days)
This can touch 15 calendar days
The IPA has also claimed that this TA has more restrictive Double Crew rules.
The fact is that only the 747-200 with bunks can be Double Crewed today. In the TA that restriction has been removed; thus, the new language is less restrictive and more productive for UPS.
The IPA has also claimed that we have better IRO rules compared to FDX.
The FDX rule for single IRO legs is as follows... If you report between 10pm and 5am local and are scheduled with more than 1-leg, then the MAX block hours is 10-hrs block.
The IPA TA must fly at least 11-hrs in one of the legs if flying more than 1-leg; thus, the new language is less restrictive and more productive for UPS.
Our IRO rules favor UPS (are less restrictive for UPS) as compared with FDX; that weak return on investment for the IPA is then translated to slower hiring & upgrades. We will become more productive which leads to slower hiring as UPS grows. Basically, the growth will be spread across many of those already on property today; reshuffling the work.
Overall Affect:
The examples I present can be built and will usually result in the same or less quality of life for both international and domestic pilots as UPS builds its Asian network.
The relief given to UPS in areas it needs to help them grow will help UPS, but it will not drive hiring & upgrades in the same fashion & vigor as UPS’ growth. This is not a good return on investment in my eyes. Is it to you/us & our families? A simple NO vote and our commitment to each other will secure our futures.
Respectfully,
Franco Fratangeli
100% IPA – 100% UPS
http://IPAonTop.org