Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




View Full Version : FDX, ANC trip 18 on feb 26


steel
02-05-2010, 11:04 AM
disputed or not?


AFW_MD11
02-05-2010, 11:30 AM
disputed or not?

according to the Feb SIG Notes email - yes

Disputed Pairings
MD11 ANC: #18 26Feb10, #33 01Feb10, #49 22Feb10, #52 25Feb10, #75 06Feb10, #144 15Feb10
MD11 MEM: #278 02Feb10 & 09Feb10, #359 17Feb10

Cessna180DVR
02-05-2010, 11:33 AM
I have it as a DP and that is DG's (Capt) 5th career disputed pairing. He is now tied with an FO for the title in ANC. Here is the list of DP's for Feb:

ANC MD11: 18/Feb26, 33/Feb01, 49/Feb22, 52/Feb25, 75/Feb06, 144/Feb15


DoubleD
02-19-2010, 06:21 PM
Seems an ANC captain has been assigned this disputed pairing almost a week early. What's up??

The Walrus
02-19-2010, 06:35 PM
Neither pilot is on reserve, so they must have requested the trip.

AerisArmis
02-22-2010, 10:04 AM
Got offered a DP draft yesterday, 50+ CH. Guy who took it is the ANC Capt caboose. He starts 777 F/O tng on 11 Mar. Guess he just doesn't care. Thanks for the effort.

4Him4Ever
02-22-2010, 02:29 PM
Looks like the FO decided to be sick before the trip... maybe he'll feel better 48 hours prior to the trip? Any thoughts?:confused:

FDXLAG
02-22-2010, 02:33 PM
Deleted.....

frozenboxhauler
02-22-2010, 03:40 PM
Looks like the FO decided to be sick before the trip... maybe he'll feel better 48 hours prior to the trip? Any thoughts?:confused:

It doesn't matter, the fact that the trip was picked up in the first place starts the clock running.
fbh

HazCan
02-22-2010, 07:44 PM
It doesn't matter, the fact that the trip was picked up in the first place starts the clock running.
fbh

True dat...

Beaverdam
02-22-2010, 09:20 PM
This trip was revised for the Capt seat.
Check out trip 2141/26FEB Same Capt assigned, but with a D/H

Open Mind
02-23-2010, 07:24 AM
It doesn't matter, the fact that the trip was picked up in the first place starts the clock running.
fbh
Please enlighten us all with a contractual reference. I don't think that there's any timeframe which starts by picking up a disputed pairing. With negotiations approaching, let's try to understand what's actually in the contract so we can discuss how to make improvements.

AerisArmis
02-23-2010, 07:42 AM
Along the same vein, could somebody tell me why ANC #136 on 1 Mar is disputed? It looks better than anything I've seen in months? Was it revised? And if so, is it still disputed?

Lucky7
02-23-2010, 07:46 AM
Asked the SIG about a trip on the Bus a long time ago got revised to a nice double deadhead pure IND hub turn week. Told once disputed always disputed. Said something about keeping the company from revising trips repeatedly getting crews to take them. FWIW.

MX727
02-23-2010, 08:58 AM
Asked the SIG about a trip on the Bus a long time ago got revised to a nice double deadhead pure IND hub turn week. Told once disputed always disputed. Said something about keeping the company from revising trips repeatedly getting crews to take them. FWIW.

Asked the same question a year or so ago and got the same answer.

AFW_MD11
02-23-2010, 09:37 AM
Along the same vein, could somebody tell me why ANC #136 on 1 Mar is disputed? It looks better than anything I've seen in months? Was it revised? And if so, is it still disputed?

Looking at #136/1Mar in VIPS it doesn't appear to have been revised.

Here is what the SIG Notes say about the ANC disputes for Mar:
There are 6 disputed pairings for March. These are all disputed for consecutive 22-28 hour layovers coupled with long duty days in-between.

There's also a little more info about the DP process

FR8Hauler
02-23-2010, 09:45 AM
Why don't you guys put in for a job with the SIG for no pay, just guys trying to make our schedules better? Every month they come out with a list of the disputed pairings and a reason why. Read your email or give them a call. Probably not a perfect system but all we have got. The reason there are trips out there that are worse than the dp's on the list is because they probably were disputed before and one of our clown actors picked them up.

AerisArmis
02-23-2010, 04:15 PM
1) Nobody is criticizing anyone.
2) Lighten up Francis.
3) If we are flying pairings worse than the DPs, what is it we are accomplishing with the DP system? Identifying DP flyers?
4) 136/1 Mar doesn't seem to violate any parameters, that's why I asked. D/H to DEL for 49, operate to PVG for 72, a couple of CAN hub turns. Check it out and tell me what you think.

The Walrus
02-23-2010, 04:19 PM
It has 2 24 hr layovers in a row after an 11 hr duty day.

steel
02-23-2010, 05:39 PM
I may be going out on a limb here, but maybe we shouldn't expect, nor require the SIG to hold our hands while picking up or trading into a dp. Why we pick these up is beyond me? We all need to start tracking in the same direction; otherwise, we are going to have a rough negotiation. Short term gains are doing nothing except setting a precedence, which lead to, "this dp trip is better than the one that isn't disputed." If it is disputed and you pick it up, even after it is revised, then you are helping only one person. We need to start publicizing names, so we have an idea who is with us and who isn't.

MX727
02-24-2010, 01:59 PM
Somewhere this went way off track.

Aeris asked why a trip was disputed and correctly asked if it had been revised. He also went on to ask if a DP that has been revised is still disputed.

A couple of us actually had called the SIG when this question came up last year and had the answer: "yes, it is still considered a DP."

No one advocated flying it or questioned the fact that it was disputed. Aeris, in my reading, simply wanted to know what drove it, since it doesn't seem to match what is said about it on the SIG notes.

Nothing I read led me to believe that anyone wanted to get into any debates along the lines of; "this DP trip is better than the one that isn't disputed."

meatloaf
02-24-2010, 04:07 PM
Yes, once a trip number is disputed for a month...it stays disputed.

Otherwise, the company changes it slightly, puts it in open time (or switches domiciles), and it is flown voluntarily by one of us.

Then, down the road, the company tells the SIG "you guys flew this voluntarily!"--refererring to the bidpack version...NOT the amended one. Future disputes become contractually impossible for that trip #, and it soon becomes the norm.

And then we live with it. :(

MaxKts
02-24-2010, 06:40 PM
AA,

The disputed trip looks better than what we are flying now because somewhere in the past someone said the same thing about what we are flying now! :eek:

Does that answer your question?


Many of the disputes are to prevent the further erosion of our schedules!

AerisArmis
02-25-2010, 06:50 AM
AA,

The disputed trip looks better than what we are flying now because somewhere in the past someone said the same thing about what we are flying now! :eek:

OK, I'll buy that. The problem is, our SIG reminds me of the guy who has all his fingers and thumbs in the dike and new leaks keep springing up. I'd say Memphis is a lost cause as far as DPs are concerned. As for ANC, the day will come soon when the VTO guys will look at what's available and will wonder why the best trips of the lot are DPs. The goal of the DP process is that the company should feel some pain for scheduling trips, considered onerous by the SIG, and not modifying them to comply with the SIGs request. How are we doing? Like I said, in MEM, fuhgetaboutit! In ANC, way better but the leaks keep springing up. Is forcing a guy, on reserve, to fly the DP painful to the company? If the DP system isn't working, why bother? Maybe the SIG should just identify what they consider to be "onerous pairings" (including all the previous DPs that now aren't) and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe there's a better answer, but other than getting pilots ****ed at pilots, the DP process appears to me to be a sinking ship due to the lack of support from a (?) percentage of the crew force. If these guys don't get it after 3 1/2 years, I'd say there's a fair chance they never will. Which is why scheduling is the most important part of the next contract.

The Walrus
02-26-2010, 05:01 AM
On a related DP note, can they give a guy a DP on IOE? Check flt 31/5mar 777.

FreightDawgyDog
02-26-2010, 07:51 AM
OK, I'll buy that. The problem is, our SIG reminds me of the guy who has all his fingers and thumbs in the dike and new leaks keep springing up. I'd say Memphis is a lost cause as far as DPs are concerned. As for ANC, the day will come soon when the VTO guys will look at what's available and will wonder why the best trips of the lot are DPs. The goal of the DP process is that the company should feel some pain for scheduling trips, considered onerous by the SIG, and not modifying them to comply with the SIGs request. How are we doing? Like I said, in MEM, fuhgetaboutit! In ANC, way better but the leaks keep springing up. Is forcing a guy, on reserve, to fly the DP painful to the company? If the DP system isn't working, why bother? Maybe the SIG should just identify what they consider to be "onerous pairings" (including all the previous DPs that now aren't) and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe there's a better answer, but other than getting pilots ****ed at pilots, the DP process appears to me to be a sinking ship due to the lack of support from a (?) percentage of the crew force. If these guys don't get it after 3 1/2 years, I'd say there's a fair chance they never will. Which is why scheduling is the most important part of the next contract.

AA..all good points. I have long been an advocate of publishing a list of DP fliers who are at least 2 time offenders. The union is not interested in this. I have talked to my rep, to legal and to the SIG (I have even written the disclaimer they could use in case of errors on the list) and no one will even consider it. I agree that the DP system (as is) is a toothless endeavor that leads ultimately to pilots with no morals being rewarded by taking trips that they could never have held. They laugh all the way to the bank at those like you and I who choose to honor the DP no fly list. IMO this program needs to be given teeth, or done away with and replaced with hard scheduling parameters in the next contract. As you said, all it really seems to accomplish is to get pilots ****ed at each other. The SIG's work is valuable, but the DP process as is just exposes how weak we are when it comes to getting enough of our fellow pilots to honor anything the union asks them to do and let's those free agents get more money and better schedules.

MX727
02-26-2010, 08:30 AM
On a related DP note, can they give a guy a DP on IOE? Check flt 31/5mar 777.

Short answer is yes. I think it's a bad idea for many reasons, not the least of being that if the student has any problems, it gives that pilot ammo if he ends up in from of a TRB. So, in my view, it puts the training integrity in jeopardy and makes no sense for them to use these flights for that reason alone.

777 standards will probably argue they have no option since they have so few trips on which to conduct IOE. If that is the case, then there should be even more incentive for management to fix this pairing.

AFW_MD11
02-26-2010, 10:07 AM
......the best trips of the lot are DPs......

.....trips that they could never have held. They laugh all the way to the bank at those like you and I who choose to honor the DP no fly list.......and let's those free agents get more money and better schedules.

just curious.....what about trip #136/1Mar (ANC) makes y'all consider it one of "the best trips" or the pilots who end up flying it to have "better schedules" that "they could never have held"?

did you actually look at that trip closely?

maybe this is what the SIG saw? (maybe not?)

two-leg, almost 11-hour duty night (over 6 block hours flying w/only 2 pilots), 3-hour drool in CAN starting at midnight local

followed by an almost 11-hour two-leg day (over 6 block hours flying again w/only 2 pilots), 3-hour drool in ICN but this time in the middle of the afternoon - with a <24 behind the door starting at sunrise in NRT sandwiched in between those two long duty periods....

followed by another <24 crew rest afternoon to afternoon in lovely SZX....followed by one more 11+ hour duty day w/almost 10 block hours - but this time w/3 pilots (whew!)

THAT's a "good" trip to you? pass the crack pipe please ;)

Oh....maybe it's "good" because it has a nice juicy front-end DH and a loooong layover after you fly the first leg - gearing up for what's to come?

I'm glad the SIG is disputing trips like this.....can you imagine what the company would come up with if they just turned the optimizer loose to build trips "to CBA parameters" without any kind of sanity check like the SIG DP process?

FDXLAG
02-26-2010, 11:30 AM
Not sure what all the fuss is about. I am pretty sure that a corollary to:

wrong!! so wrong!! that's what I have been trying to get through your thick skull there "LAG"

NOTHING....I repeat.....NOTHING that any individual pilot does perpetuates 4A2b.

do you get that? ...

has to be that nothing an individual pilot does hurts or helps the DP process.:D

AFW_MD11
02-26-2010, 12:16 PM
Not sure what all the fuss is about. I am pretty sure that a corollary to:



has to be that nothing an individual pilot does hurts or helps the DP process.:D

ummmmm.....yeah.....I guess I'm not quite connecting your dots there??

I was asking what they thought was so "good" about this trip? while pointing out what I thought was so "bad" about it.

Wasn't talking about anyone picking up DP's or 4A2b or whatever you're talking about?

Thanks for the input though!?! :confused:

FDXLAG
02-26-2010, 05:47 PM
Wasn't necessarily talking to you, just asking what the fuss was about for DPs. It is not like individual pilots actions have any affect or anything right?

v1 uh-oh
02-26-2010, 07:06 PM
On a side note, you may want to be VERY careful who you call/email regarding their flying of a DP or doing VLT/DRF. One of our Capt's is in deep shiite over this.

FreightDawgyDog
02-27-2010, 03:31 AM
just curious.....what about trip #136/1Mar (ANC) makes y'all consider it one of "the best trips" or the pilots who end up flying it to have "better schedules" that "they could never have held"?

did you actually look at that trip closely?

maybe this is what the SIG saw? (maybe not?)

two-leg, almost 11-hour duty night (over 6 block hours flying w/only 2 pilots), 3-hour drool in CAN starting at midnight local

followed by an almost 11-hour two-leg day (over 6 block hours flying again w/only 2 pilots), 3-hour drool in ICN but this time in the middle of the afternoon - with a <24 behind the door starting at sunrise in NRT sandwiched in between those two long duty periods....

followed by another <24 crew rest afternoon to afternoon in lovely SZX....followed by one more 11+ hour duty day w/almost 10 block hours - but this time w/3 pilots (whew!)

THAT's a "good" trip to you? pass the crack pipe please ;)

Oh....maybe it's "good" because it has a nice juicy front-end DH and a loooong layover after you fly the first leg - gearing up for what's to come?

I'm glad the SIG is disputing trips like this.....can you imagine what the company would come up with if they just turned the optimizer loose to build trips "to CBA parameters" without any kind of sanity check like the SIG DP process?

I'm not quite sure about the point you are trying to make. Are you defending those that pick up DP's because there is a segment or two during the pairing the SIG has rightfully pointed out as onerous and the trip isn't as good as some think? I think the point AA and I were trying to make was fix the DP process by making sure there are some sort of ramification to DP flyers rather than leave it to the crew force to call out their peers and possibly (see post above) face disciplinary action by the company. For the sake of argument I guess I could research some of the previous DP's and cherry pick those with long layovers in great cities and big deviation banks to prove my point but I'm, not really interested in arguing. I hope we both agree there is never a good reason to fly a DP.

AFW_MD11
02-27-2010, 04:50 AM
I'm not quite sure about the point you are trying to make. Are you defending those that pick up DP's because there is a segment or two during the pairing the SIG has rightfully pointed out as onerous and the trip isn't as good as some think? I think the point AA and I were trying to make was fix the DP process by making sure there are some sort of ramification to DP flyers rather than leave it to the crew force to call out their peers and possibly (see post above) face disciplinary action by the company. For the sake of argument I guess I could research some of the previous DP's and cherry pick those with long layovers in great cities and big deviation banks to prove my point but I'm, not really interested in arguing. I hope we both agree there is never a good reason to fly a DP.

I think we're on the same sheet of music here - voluntarily flying DP's = bad - we DO agree on that.

(I think LAG has confused THIS issue by injecting some of my earlier comments about 4A2b - trying to put a square peg in a round hole throwing in some of my comments on 4A2b out of context here and muddying this issue)

anyway.....my point with you and AA was this:

I took both yours and AA's comments as saying:

"why is this trip disputed? it's a "BETTER" trip than ones that are NOT disputed"......

and "...pilots who pick up some of these DP's voluntarily are getting "BETTER" schedules than folks senior to them don't/can't get because those senior folks refuse to pick up DP's..."

and "the DP process is broken because there is no penalty for volunteering to fly a DP..." (THIS I agree with you guys on 100%) - we shouldn't have to police our own when it comes to volunteering for DP's

my point was even though the DP process is mostly broken.....still the SIG continues to fight the good fight and dispute pairings that they deem "worthy" (or in this case "un-worthy" to be flown) - DP's are disputed for a REASON - they are NOT good trips - they are NOT better than the non-disputed trips in the bidpacks

the pilots picking up DP's are NOT getting a "better schedule" than they could normally get by voluntarily flying these DP's

there is no need for those of us who stand firm in refusing to fly DP's to feel cheated out of a "good deal" when we don't pick up that temptingly crafted DP - they are ALL bad trips!!

I used the example of this pairing (ANC #136/1Mar) that y'all were saying wasn't so bad as one that might look "better" at first glance than other non-disputed ones (because of it's front-end DH, or long layovers in the first few days, or whatever it is that you and/or AA saw in it that you liked?) - but if you look really closely at the details, it is CLEARLY evident why the SIG chose to dispute it.

DP process = mostly broken - agreed (weak contractual language undermines the effectiveness of the process.)

SIG still doing their job in pointing out/disputing "bad" trips - trust them and don't feel like you're being cheated out of a "good deal" by them.

Pilots should still support the SIG's dispute process by not even attempt to judge whether or not it is a valid dispute or not - just DON'T VOLUNTEER to fly them - move on.

For LAG - volunteering to fly DP's is NOT the same nor is that "behavior" related in any way to flying M/U or DRF or VLT during 4A2b - two completely separate issues/behaviors - sorry.

AFW_MD11
02-27-2010, 05:06 AM
On a side note, you may want to be VERY careful who you call/email regarding their flying of a DP or doing VLT/DRF. One of our Capt's is in deep shiite over this.

.... rather than leave it to the crew force to call out their peers and possibly (see post above) face disciplinary action by the company.

Agreed.

However, there is a BIG difference between EDUCATING or INFORMING a co-worker about the DP process and/or that they might have inadvertently picked up a pairing that is currently under dispute - "just so ya know" - "hey, here's a copy of the SIG Notes email that lists all the disputed pairings for the month...", etc.

and....

intimidating/threatening a co-worker who accepts a NON-disputed trip on VLT or DRF or any other pay status during 4A2b - because it's your personal opinion that this is wrong while we're under 4A2b

BIG difference. Yes....be careful what you say and do.

what did said Captain do/say anyway? and what's the company doing about it?

is he/she senior to me? over 60? ;)

FDXLAG
02-27-2010, 06:27 AM
For the record, intimidating and threatening a coworker is almost always wrong isn't it (4A2b or not 4A2b so to speak)?

But hey, I have seen some pretty personal attacks on here just because of difference of opinions on education campaigns and whether reserve manning levels are responsible for 4A2b. Luckily, when you consider the source, they weren't very intimidating. And no AFW I am not referring to any of our "conversations".

R1200RT
02-27-2010, 07:48 AM
FYI,
if you look at someone's schedule, phone number etc. or anything in vips and then that person is harassed or contacted. From what I'm hearing you might get a personal invite to meet LK if they rat you out.
And you know the guys that need to receive the phone calls are the type that would run to Mgmt to complain.
They are not worth it, or your job.

The Walrus
02-27-2010, 08:15 AM
I've got a fix for the DP process. We should negotiate into our next contract that if a DP status is imposed on a flight, then it only pays 75% of the normal pay, unless picked up by a reserve pilot. If flown by a reserve pilot, it should be leveled at 125%.

Busboy
02-27-2010, 08:52 AM
How about this for a fix in the next contract?

We negotiate hard work/scheduling rules that do not allow the company to build a pairing that would otherwise be disputed.

The problem with allowing the general crewforce to decide if a pairing is too painful to pick up(at any price), is evident in our current situation.

And, the problem with my idea is that we will have to force the comapny to agree to what we need. That is going to take some resolve from this group.

Cujo
02-27-2010, 08:59 AM
I've got a fix for the DP process. We should negotiate into our next contract that if a DP status is imposed on a flight, then it only pays 75% of the normal pay, unless picked up by a reserve pilot. If flown by a reserve pilot, it should be leveled at 125%.

That has some merit...gives incentives to both sides not to build/fly DP's

AerisArmis
02-27-2010, 04:20 PM
just curious.....what about trip #136/1Mar (ANC) makes y'all consider it one of "the best trips" or the pilots who end up flying it to have "better schedules" that "they could never have held"?


I'all don't consider it "one of the best trips", just better that a large part of the trips in the bid pack that aren't disputed. The proof? The #1 Capt in ANC traded in to it (or picked it up as makeup). In the last week, the last Capt and the first Capt on the ANC seniority list have grabbed up DPs. Like I said, it's broken and I can't see how it can be fixed.

nakazawa
02-27-2010, 05:56 PM
OK -
I hate to chime in, but there are a couple problems with this thread. First of all, you're all looking at the dispute process as a TODAY issue - for this month, this bid period. In fact, the dispute process is a VERY long look at what's been flown in the past. The reason some of the very lousy trips in the bidpack are actually on lines and NOT disputed is - crews have flown them so often that our complaints don't hold water with the SIG ACP, the SCP, or the VP Flight Ops. There's also a good chance those bad trips were flown on other equipment before they migrated to the MD-11 (or any other aircraft) without dispute, and now we're [all] stuck with them.
TODAY - think about what was bad yesterday, last month, last year, or 10 years ago. Dig out your ALPA pocket rocket and look at the trips you flew back then compared to NOW. If you want another dissertation on some of the handshake agreements, let me know. Until then just remember, trips are disputed by a group of crew members, and the final dispute decision is made by the SCP or VP Flight Ops. There's a dispute process, and it's not just RH or our SIG/PSIT fellow crew members that opt to arbitrarily dispute a trip. The dispute process isn't taken lightly by the Company or our SIG, and if OR and PC think the trips are bad, so do I.

MeXC
02-27-2010, 06:38 PM
Long term thinking?! Crazy, man.

frozenboxhauler
02-27-2010, 08:31 PM
Please enlighten us all with a contractual reference. I don't think that there's any timeframe which starts by picking up a disputed pairing. With negotiations approaching, let's try to understand what's actually in the contract so we can discuss how to make improvements.

Open Mind, it's not in the contract and therefore, there is no contractual reference. It is just the way the company sees the world,( their interpretation),. To be fully enlightened, ask any current or former SIG member.
Moral of the story,... DON'T PICK UP ANY DISPUTED PAIRINGS!
fbh

Open Mind
02-28-2010, 08:10 AM
Open Mind, it's not in the contract and therefore, there is no contractual reference. It is just the way the company sees the world,( their interpretation),. To be fully enlightened, ask any current or former SIG member.
Moral of the story,... DON'T PICK UP ANY DISPUTED PAIRINGS!
fbh
Too many guys rely on "word of mouth" for contractual info, so when I see misinformation stated as fact and the next guy cheers(Hazcan). It seems like a little fact checking is doing my small part for "truth,justice and the American way". Also, there is no moral in this story. The contract is simply a document. If you don't like the language, voice your solution and work to change it. Lastly, if I could attain true enlightenment, I would reach nirvana... then I wouldn't care about earthly pursuits!! :):)

frozenboxhauler
02-28-2010, 10:58 AM
Too many guys rely on "word of mouth" for contractual info, so when I see misinformation stated as fact and the next guy cheers(Hazcan). It seems like a little fact checking is doing my small part for "truth,justice and the American way". Also, there is no moral in this story. The contract is simply a document. If you don't like the language, voice your solution and work to change it. Lastly, if I could attain true enlightenment, I would reach nirvana... then I wouldn't care about earthly pursuits!! :):)

OM, did you just call me a liar? I have fact checked it, and there is NOTHING in the contract covering this,...I agree, there should be! Like I said before, contact a current or former SIG member to learn more about this "misinformation stated as fact".
The moral of the story ramains the same; "DON'T FLY DISPUTED PAIRINGS!
Searching for nirvana myself,
fbh

MeXC
02-28-2010, 02:50 PM
fbh, I think he meant "there are no morals in this story"...

MaydayMark
02-28-2010, 03:41 PM
OM, did you just call me a liar? I have fact checked it, and there is NOTHING in the contract covering this,...I agree, there should be! Like I said before, contact a current or former SIG member to learn more about this "misinformation stated as fact".
The moral of the story ramains the same; "DON'T FLY DISPUTED PAIRINGS!
Searching for nirvana myself,
fbh


It has been Open Minds SOP to knit-pick any and all DP terminology in the CBA. I HAVE to assume he's desperately attempting to find a way to justify his own behavior?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, "Mr Open Mind, if you're not part of the solution then you are part of the problem."

You Mr "Open Mind" are part of the problem!

HazCan
02-28-2010, 07:28 PM
Too many guys rely on "word of mouth" for contractual info, so when I see misinformation stated as fact and the next guy cheers(Hazcan). It seems like a little fact checking is doing my small part for "truth,justice and the American way". Also, there is no moral in this story. The contract is simply a document. If you don't like the language, voice your solution and work to change it. Lastly, if I could attain true enlightenment, I would reach nirvana... then I wouldn't care about earthly pursuits!! :):)

Cheering might be a little strong, I think I just said "True Dat".:D

Gunter
02-28-2010, 08:26 PM
Please enlighten us all with a contractual reference. I don't think that there's any timeframe which starts by picking up a disputed pairing. With negotiations approaching, let's try to understand what's actually in the contract so we can discuss how to make improvements.

For claiming to have an Open Mind you sure have sealed it up pretty tight. You are always on track to ignore current reality in favor of hope for change.

Until we get another contract in 2012 or so we have the DP system. You have claimed before how it doesn't work. That's not entirely true. If a pairing is hard to fill and gets too expense to run as is, it changes. I've seen it before and we'll see it again....before the next contract.

If a pairing gets requested for secondary lines and gets picked up out of open time it may not start a clock but it is less likely to get changed. To promote that fatigue on the rest of us is an aggressive act and I'm asking you to cease and desist.

Gunter
02-28-2010, 08:35 PM
It seems like a little fact checking is doing my small part for "truth,justice and the American way".

If you were interested in fact checking you would learn about how the company has been encouraged to enter into agreements with the pilot group in the last few years. To get this type of context you'll need to get out and talk to some reliable folks instead of just reading the CBA, LOAs or settlement agreements in your hotel room.

Open Mind
03-03-2010, 06:20 PM
Cheering might be a little strong, I think I just said "True Dat".:D
Sorry to misterpret your "True Dat" as cheering/agreement. Although I speak "jive" fluently, your dialect of "hipster jibberish" was unintelligible. Please keep my error "on the down low" and remember "its all good"!!!:):)

Open Mind
03-03-2010, 06:35 PM
It has been Open Minds SOP to knit-pick any and all DP terminology in the CBA. I HAVE to assume he's desperately attempting to find a way to justify his own behavior?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, "Mr Open Mind, if you're not part of the solution then you are part of the problem."

You Mr "Open Mind" are part of the problem!
Thank you for recognizing me as part of the problem. Its a high compliment, although I think you meant to say that I knit-pick any and all terminology in the CBA, not just a single section. Since the MEC has stated that its not their job to explain the contract, we all share that burden. However, putting that aside, I'm very happy to be opposed to your view of unionism and what is acceptable, I'm not required to share your opinions. Out of curiousity, what part of the single solution are you??

frozenboxhauler
03-03-2010, 06:36 PM
Sorry to misterpret your "True Dat" as cheering/agreement. Although I speak "jive" fluently, your dialect of "hipster jibberish" was unintelligible. Please keep my error "on the down low" and remember "its all good"!!!:):)

So Open, have you checked it out for yourself or am I still a liar?
fbh

steel
03-03-2010, 10:00 PM
open mind,

If you are a union member, then the disputed process is covered nicely within the alpa website.

Simply log into the fdx alpa website, fdx.alpa.org, go to committees, go to Schedule Improvement Group, and then click on Disputed Pairings Explained (everyone should do this, as a matter of fact please go to the other committees' links as well, as they have information that will help everyone get "smart" for the upcoming negotiations. We all need to be together on this one!)

It is in everyone's benefit to follow the Sig's recommendations. It will not only help to protect one's certificate, but will lengthen one's life. If more pilots here (not saying you don't open mind!!) understood this, then we and the retirees could ensure a more secure future for all of us.

Please follow the Sig's advice and pay attention to all disputed pairings, whether revised by scheduling or not. A revised dp with a front end deadhead is not a justifiable reason to pick it up. The Sig only disputes them at the beginning of the month. If you pick up/trade into a trip, which is disputed, then don't expect others to join in your celebration.

Open Mind
03-04-2010, 03:06 PM
So Open, have you checked it out for yourself or am I still a liar?
fbh
You made a statement, I asked for a reference and you agreed... its not in the contract. For me, that's case closed, move on. If you have a case to make... go right ahead.

frozenboxhauler
03-04-2010, 03:19 PM
You made a statement, I asked for a reference and you agreed... its not in the contract. For me, that's case closed, move on. If you have a case to make... go right ahead.

So are you still accusing me of "spreading misinformation"? Just curious.
I don't take kindly to being called a liar.
fbh

AerisArmis
03-04-2010, 03:21 PM
I think you meant to say that I knit-pick any and all terminology in the CBA,

Not to nit pick, but it's nit, as in lice eggs, not knit, as in the sweater your mom made you. :eek:



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1