View Single Post
Old 03-07-2011, 11:36 AM
  #8  
Jonathan E
Line Holder
 
Jonathan E's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 86
Default

kc135driver,
Briefly:

1) Yes.

2) Obviously, UPS will need some pilots in administrative and manager positions. They just won't need so many if office duties block availability for emergency flying. We still want these positions under our umbrella. No more "yes men" afraid of reprisals. More better operational decisions, maybe? They can flow into the office, they can flow back out onto the line with union protection.

3) This letter isn't the IPA trying to scare our FQSs. They're trying to educate them about how UPS views them. I've watched a few FQSs get very frustrated when Bob Leikites wouldn't listen to presentations, walk out in the middle of a presentation, etc. Necessary changes would not get enacted upon.

What's scary is UPS's view of FQSs in their response: if an FQS can't work all day in an office and fly all night, UPS doesn't want them. I've had trips with FQSs that during layovers, had to interrupt their rest to participate in conference calls on their cellphones. Which in turn, interrupt my rest (sleep) because I can hear them through the hotel walls. This sheepdip has got to end. It will end.

4) These responses to the NPRM come from UPS labor, or Tony Coleman of Frost, Brown and Todd. Take your pick. No FQSs are ever involved with a real decision of importance, ever. Even Rick Barr looks, well, not as chipper as he used to.

I don't know how this will shake out, but the Buffallo crash will change things. Not even Big Brown will get their way and keep their current deal with management emergency flying.

As far as accretion goes, I think the IPA will prevail in one way or another and finally end our "airline within an airline".
Jonathan E is offline