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 : UPS Managers/labor law


Night_Hawk
02-23-2010, 10:45 AM
Any insight into labor/ union law:

If ups furloughs and uses non-union pilots to fly our line flights. Is this a violation of the law. Aren't they replacing union workers w/ non?

Thoughts?

N_H


Buck92
02-23-2010, 11:51 AM
Agreed. Don't see how you could possibly justify the "E" in MEF if the emergency is created by the company in laying off line pilots. I think this is actually a very good case to bring to a labor attorney.

Twin Wasp
02-23-2010, 12:01 PM
I think it's more a matter of what your contract says. Usually found under "scope" (all flying that is performed by the Company....shall be performed by crewmembers on the ... seniority list) and "management." The management section usually says how a line pilot will be made whole if a management pilot displaces him.


weatherman
02-23-2010, 12:12 PM
Any insight into labor/ union law:

If ups furloughs and uses non-union pilots to fly our line flights. Is this a violation of the law. Aren't they replacing union workers w/ non?

Thoughts?

N_H

well that's the million dollar question isn't it? and one that will be decided very soon as soon as one union pilot hits the street and is illegally replaced.

my opinion is that it is in complete violation of federal labor law and will be very interested to see how ups justifies throwing hundreds of union pilots on the street just to replace them with non union pilots.

Luckydawg
02-23-2010, 01:24 PM
well that's the million dollar question isn't it? and one that will be decided very soon as soon as one union pilot hits the street and is illegally replaced.

my opinion is that it is in complete violation of federal labor law and will be very interested to see how ups justifies throwing hundreds of union pilots on the street just to replace them with non union pilots.

Come on weatherman, I thought with the whole condiment, peanut butter and jelly thing, this is all whipsawing for "Happier times" in Shenzen

Tigerpilot1995
02-23-2010, 01:25 PM
I think it's more a matter of what your contract says. Usually found under "scope" (all flying that is performed by the Company....shall be performed by crewmembers on the ... seniority list) and "management." The management section usually says how a line pilot will be made whole if a management pilot displaces him.

Actually it is a matter of federal law. What our contract says really doesn't mean squat. You can enter into an agreement but that doesn't mean it is lawful. Look up what a "closed shop" means. I think that is going to be the crux of the issue. In all honesty a furlough, while make it sound more a sound case, really doesn't mean squat.

My hunch is this won't matter and I don't mean they won't furlough.

newKnow
02-23-2010, 01:53 PM
I think it's more a matter of what your contract says. Usually found under "scope" (all flying that is performed by the Company....shall be performed by crewmembers on the ... seniority list) and "management." The management section usually says how a line pilot will be made whole if a management pilot displaces him.

Actually it is a matter of federal law. What our contract says really doesn't mean squat. You can enter into an agreement but that doesn't mean it is lawful. Look up what a "closed shop" means. I think that is going to be the crux of the issue. In all honesty a furlough, while make it sound more a sound case, really doesn't mean squat.

My hunch is this won't matter and I don't mean they won't furlough.

Actually, Twin Wasp is right on. If your bargaining agent (IPA) negotiated a contract that allowed management pilots to fly your routes, you would be hard pressed to find any arbitrator or federal judge to overturn it.

If you look up "closed shop" you will see that Taft-Hartley made them illegal. What you have is an agreement between the company and the union on how and who to hire and fire.

You are right though in that the court will not enforce an agreement that is illegal. But, in aviation cases, that is more likely to deal with an attempted subversion of the FAR's or some other federal regulation. There is no federal law that says union (IPA) pilots have to fly UPS airplanes.

Your contract means everything in the court of law. If there is part of it that is illegal, I doubt it's the part that allows management pilots to fly. Good luck though.

New K

Busdrivr
02-23-2010, 02:22 PM
Any insight into labor/ union law:

If ups furloughs and uses non-union pilots to fly our line flights. Is this a violation of the law. Aren't they replacing union workers w/ non?

Thoughts?

N_H

Question. Do your management pilots hold a seniority number? At FedEx ALL management "pilots" hold a # and many them belong to ALPA.
Are your managers just strike busters or do they work for a living?

Section Eight
02-23-2010, 02:31 PM
Question. Do your management pilots hold a seniority number? At FedEx ALL management "pilots" hold a # and many them belong to ALPA.
Are your managers just strike busters or do they work for a living?

They are listed by UPS as "pilots" but are not on the IPA seniority list, nor are they members of the IPA. We have some that were hired as managers when they interviewed, and others that "left" the IPA for a management position, thus relinquishing their IPA membership and seniority number. Thus the "airline within an airline" you here us refer to often.

I am sure there is someone out there that could explain it better, but that's what I know (which isn't much)

MX727
02-23-2010, 03:14 PM
What language forces them to leave the IPA when taking a management job? IPA or UPS requirement that managers not be on the seniority list?

767pilot
02-23-2010, 03:47 PM
What language forces them to leave the IPA when taking a management job? IPA or UPS requirement that managers not be on the seniority list?

ups has always insisted on it

JustUnderPar
02-23-2010, 04:45 PM
ups has always insisted on it

Insisted? I guess that is one way to look at it.

767pilot
02-23-2010, 04:55 PM
Insisted? I guess that is one way to look at it.

what other way is there? What am I missing?

JustUnderPar
02-23-2010, 05:30 PM
what other way is there? What am I missing?


Bad attempt at sarcasm I guess.:cool:

767pilot
02-23-2010, 05:47 PM
we need a sarcasm emoticon ;)

J Dawg
02-23-2010, 10:11 PM
what other way is there? What am I missing?

Greed? Nothing else 'forced' the line pilots-gone-bad to leave the IPA and give up their seniority.

BrownBusDriver
02-24-2010, 02:32 AM
What language forces them to leave the IPA when taking a management job? IPA or UPS requirement that managers not be on the seniority list?

They were offered this option at hiring or crossed over from the IPA to management. For the last 15 years, it has been FOs crossing over to be Cpts in 30 days, then check airmen....nice system huh

Freightpuppy
02-24-2010, 04:50 AM
Greed? Nothing else 'forced' the line pilots-gone-bad to leave the IPA and give up their seniority.

Basically cutting in line in the seniority system.

FliFast
02-24-2010, 07:55 AM
I'm curious if the scope discussions will also review the non-UPS aircraft that provide lift for UPS during peak and in Europe and Asia while we have pilots on furlough.

FF

JustUnderPar
02-24-2010, 08:06 AM
I'm curious if the scope discussions will also review the non-UPS aircraft that provide lift for UPS during peak and in Europe and Asia while we have pilots on furlough.

FF

Ding-Ding-Ding. We have a winner! Yes interesting times we are having right now.

Upper management are either idiots or geniuses. Using RIF language to get everyone trained. (no...not the guys out there flying the line, they are not management. Management is clearly defined. They very clearly are not!) Talking about the guys in Atlanta.

Interesting times.

MX727
02-24-2010, 09:35 AM
They were offered this option at hiring or crossed over from the IPA to management. For the last 15 years, it has been FOs crossing over to be Cpts in 30 days, then check airmen....nice system huh

It's interesting to me because periodically the idea is floated to force our management pilots to resign their seniority number if they become career office types, hiding from the line operations.

I think we can learn from what has happened and is currently happening at UPS and see why that probably isn't the best system.

CactusCrew
02-24-2010, 09:42 AM
It's interesting to me because periodically the idea is floated to force our management pilots to resign their seniority number if they become career office types, hiding from the line operations.

I think we can learn from what has happened and is currently happening at UPS and see why that probably isn't the best system.


I've seen both sides of the fence, yours is a better system in this regard.

Don't the permanent office types become "executive inactive" or some other ALPA term ? Still retaining seniority, etc in the unlikely event that they return to the line.

The Walrus
02-24-2010, 09:50 AM
At Fedex, they typically join the union, become union committee members, then go for the management job.:rolleyes:

fr8rcaptain
02-27-2010, 04:09 PM
well that's the million dollar question isn't it? and one that will be decided very soon as soon as one union pilot hits the street and is illegally replaced.

my opinion is that it is in complete violation of federal labor law and will be very interested to see how ups justifies throwing hundreds of union pilots on the street just to replace them with non union pilots.

Article 1.D.1.c.(5) clearly pay protects furloughed pilots in seniority order for any peak flying done by outside subcontractors. :-)

Tigerpilot1995
02-27-2010, 05:27 PM
Article 1.D.1.c.(5) clearly pay protects furloughed pilots in seniority order for any peak flying done by outside subcontractors. :-)

I am not a lawyer but I looked up that paragraph and my question is do our subcontractors use airplanes leased from UPS? Read 1.D1.c(5)i to see where I am coming from.

Disclaimer; recovering from a head injury, had a beer or two tonight, and may have completely read that paragraph wrong :D

SaltyDog
02-28-2010, 12:00 AM
What language forces them to leave the IPA when taking a management job? IPA or UPS requirement that managers not be on the seniority list?

It is located in our collective bargaining agreement of all places.
The contract defines seniority assignment in Article 8:
ARTICLE 8
SENIORITY
A. Seniority List

2. All crewmembers hired by the Company subsequently will be added to the bottom of the seniority list...
3. The Company shall post on its bulletin board at all locations where crewmembers are domiciled the United Parcel Service Crewmember Seniority List. Such list shall contain the names of all crewmembers entitled to seniority, whether active, or inactive, the date of employment as a crewmember, date of birth and the crewmember’s permanent bid position.
4. The list shall be brought up to date as of February 1 and August 1 of each year...

The contract then defines who is a 'crewmember' in Article 2 as:

"Crewmember (excepting Management Crewmembers) - means the
Captains, First Officers, Professional Flight Engineers and Second
Officers and employed by the Company, who are currently on the
seniority list or will be added to the seniority list in accordance with this
Agreement."

When a person is offered FAA flight employment, they clearly are accepting "'management crewmember" status which by contract excludes them from memebrship in the IPA. (different interview process)

IPA crewmembers who accept 'promotion' (UPS lanaguage) into a flight qualified supervisor status contractually are now identified as "management crewmembers" and thus lose/resign their seniority number.


Actually, Twin Wasp is right on. If your bargaining agent (IPA) negotiated a contract that allowed management pilots to fly your routes, you would be hard pressed to find any arbitrator or federal judge to overturn it.

If you look up "closed shop" you will see that Taft-Hartley made them illegal. What you have is an agreement between the company and the union on how and who to hire and fire.

You are right though in that the court will not enforce an agreement that is illegal. But, in aviation cases, that is more likely to deal with an attempted subversion of the FAR's or some other federal regulation. There is no federal law that says union (IPA) pilots have to fly UPS airplanes.

Your contract means everything in the court of law. If there is part of it that is illegal, I doubt it's the part that allows management pilots to fly. Good luck though.

New K

New K,
Kentucky is a "non-right to work state". This was the exclusion allowed by Taft-Hartley regarding 'closed' shop status.
Tennessee is opposite, and is a "right to work" state. Hence, difference in FedEx and UPS unions regarding membership.

The IPA/UPS collective bargaining agreement does allow 'management crewmembers' to fly under very specific circumstances. The question arising is that the CBA is largely written to permit proficiency flying by displacement (protects union pilots) but unlimited flying in emergencies. i.e. lack of crews.
Thus, common sense question is: If UPS furloughs line pilots with seniority numbers and then claims an 'emergency' situation exists that requires UPS to use flight qualified supervisors to operate the airplanes due to a lack of union pilots, can they furlough the entire union of pilots and hire 'management crewmembers' to destroy the union?"

Seems ridiculous for UPS to claim any need for this part of the CBA to use "management emergency flying' when UPS management created the 'emergency' by furloughing line pilots. Would seem to be a legal question involving RLA disputes (Federal) and Kentucky law.

newKnow
02-28-2010, 08:45 AM
New K,
Kentucky is a "non-right to work state". This was the exclusion allowed by Taft-Hartley regarding 'closed' shop status.
Tennessee is opposite, and is a "right to work" state. Hence, difference in FedEx and UPS unions regarding membership.

The IPA/UPS collective bargaining agreement does allow 'management crewmembers' to fly under very specific circumstances. The question arising is that the CBA is largely written to permit proficiency flying by displacement (protects union pilots) but unlimited flying in emergencies. i.e. lack of crews.
Thus, common sense question is: If UPS furloughs line pilots with seniority numbers and then claims an 'emergency' situation exists that requires UPS to use flight qualified supervisors to operate the airplanes due to a lack of union pilots, can they furlough the entire union of pilots and hire 'management crewmembers' to destroy the union?"

Seems ridiculous for UPS to claim any need for this part of the CBA to use "management emergency flying' when UPS management created the 'emergency' by furloughing line pilots. Would seem to be a legal question involving RLA disputes (Federal) and Kentucky law.

Salty,

I think we are splitting hairs on this closed shop issue and I am guilty of being the first to do so. But, when Tiger directed Twin to look up what a closed shop is and stated that that was the crux of the issue, he is factually wrong.

A closed shop is where the company cannot hire an individual unless he is already a member of a particular union. In your case, UPS would not be able to hire a pilot unless he was a member of the IPA before the interview. Effectively, in a closed shop the union has complete control of the hiring process because the union controls the hiring pool. If the IPA didn't accept a pilot into its membership that pilot could never work for UPS. Taft-Hartley made all closed shops illegal. No exceptions.

What is allowed by Taft are union shops where the company hires an individual and then afterward, they must join the union (or, at least pay dues) within 30 days or their employment start date. You are right in that this type of situation is regulated by the individual States decision on whether or not they will be a right to work state.

Tiger was also wrong when he said, "[w]hat our contract says really doesn't mean squat." Your CBA means everything in this case and this was the main point I was making to him. I was not saying that your contract allowed management pilots to fly your routes. I have not seen your contract, so I can't say one way or the other for sure. But, I doubt that it would.

As for your common sense question; if it were me in the judges or arbitrators seat, it would seem to me that it would be unreasonable for the company to furlough pilots then claim that they were in an emergency situation because of lack of crews. I think if you apply whats called the Doctrine of Unclean Hands or maybe to a lesser extent unconscionability and/or good faith, you guys would be in good shape on that issue.

Good luck either way. I hope you guys remain fired up about this, because I think it's a shame when a profitable company announces a furlough in what to me is a clear attempt to influence future contract negotiations. Don't let them get away with it.

New K Now

Roberto
02-28-2010, 09:29 AM
...if it were me in the judges or arbitrators seat, it would seem to me that it would be unreasonable for the company to furlough pilots then claim that they were in an emergency situation because of lack of crews...

A lot, probably most, of the management emergency flying (MEF) is not due to lack of crews per se, but from flights that get interrupted out of domicile, or flights that do not fit the contractual reserve call-out time or maximum duty time. We normally have crews around the country at home that can get to the out-of-domicile flights, or reserves that are available for those and the others, but not in a timely manner.

These flights, in good times, are covered by volunteers who pick up overtime or JA at 150%. When our crews decline the opportunity, then management gets to fly them. Adding more pilots will not satisy these situations.

How does that fit in with your judgment?

newKnow
02-28-2010, 09:58 AM
A lot, probably most, of the management emergency flying (MEF) is not due to lack of crews per se, but from flights that get interrupted out of domicile, or short-notice flights that do not fit the contractual reserve call-out time or maximum duty time. We normally have crews around the country at home that can get to the out-of-domicile flights, or reserves that are available for those and the others, but not in a timely manner.

These flights, in good times, are covered by volunteers who pick up overtime at 150%. When our crews decline the opportunity, then management gets to fly them.

How does that fit in with your judgment?

The situation as you describe it seems ok. Mainly, because you indicate that that is the way things have been done and continue to be done without objection from the union. Courts will look to acceptance of past practices to determine what both parties understood the contract to mean. If you accept it, the courts will interpret that to mean you agree to it.

What I thought Salty was saying what that management might furlough seniority list pilots then use management pilots to fly those hours. If that were to happen, the likely result would be that management pilots would wind up flying a lot more than they normally do and in different situations from what you described (not reserve call outs). If that were the case, my judgment would tell me that the company was acting in bad faith and attempting to find a way to subvert the contract. A big no-no.

New K

SaltyDog
02-28-2010, 03:26 PM
A lot, probably most, of the management emergency flying (MEF) is not due to lack of crews per se, but from flights that get interrupted out of domicile, or flights that do not fit the contractual reserve call-out time or maximum duty time. We normally have crews around the country at home that can get to the out-of-domicile flights, or reserves that are available for those and the others, but not in a timely manner.

These flights, in good times, are covered by volunteers who pick up overtime at 150%. When our crews decline the opportunity, then management gets to fly them. Adding more pilots will not satisy these situations.

How does that fit in with your judgment?

Roberto,
UPS knows exactly how to manage a schedule into an MEF situation. They only need to get inside a 48 hour threshold. Then they own it and can exclude union pilots. Have watched this for years. UPS with 48 hours can cover this flying with Reserve/Hot crews contractually. 'Hot" crews can pick up anything inside 30 minutes. UPS has cut back on Hots and use non union flight qualified supervisors to pick up the flying. Simply, it 'saves' money in their acounting strategy and justifies existence of a large non union airline within an airline to ATL.

On a counter question: How does FedEx deal with these challenges without falling apart? Do they rely on a large non union airline embedded in the structure? No. They have enough crews on "hots"/Reserve to manage the challenges of a dynamic environment. The IPA/UPS contractually agreed and to an OT/JA ban. It is not an open debate within RLA since UPS signed off on that contingency called by a furlough.
UPS will be hard pressed to justify an increase in MEF flying with the furlough and JA/OT ban completely controlled by management. This is a self induced failure by design.
IPA needs to call them on this. They are violating the contract and it's intent.

Salty,

I think we are splitting hairs on this closed shop issue and I am guilty of being the first to do so. But, when Tiger directed Twin to look up what a closed shop is and stated that that was the crux of the issue, he is factually wrong.

A closed shop is where the company cannot hire an individual unless he is already a member of a particular union. In your case, UPS would not be able to hire a pilot unless he was a member of the IPA before the interview. Effectively, in a closed shop the union has complete control of the hiring process because the union controls the hiring pool. If the IPA didn't accept a pilot into its membership that pilot could never work for UPS. Taft-Hartley made all closed shops illegal. No exceptions.

What is allowed by Taft are union shops where the company hires an individual and then afterward, they must join the union (or, at least pay dues) within 30 days or their employment start date. You are right in that this type of situation is regulated by the individual States decision on whether or not they will be a right to work state.

Tiger was also wrong when he said, "[w]hat our contract says really doesn't mean squat." Your CBA means everything in this case and this was the main point I was making to him. I was not saying that your contract allowed management pilots to fly your routes. I have not seen your contract, so I can't say one way or the other for sure. But, I doubt that it would.

As for your common sense question; if it were me in the judges or arbitrators seat, it would seem to me that it would be unreasonable for the company to furlough pilots then claim that they were in an emergency situation because of lack of crews. I think if you apply whats called the Doctrine of Unclean Hands or maybe to a lesser extent unconscionability and/or good faith, you guys would be in good shape on that issue.

Good luck either way. I hope you guys remain fired up about this, because I think it's a shame when a profitable company announces a furlough in what to me is a clear attempt to influence future contract negotiations. Don't let them get away with it.

New K Now
Agree, was using your post to address the 'closed shop' issue and the present 'right to work' and 'non right to work' situation. Don't question your knowledge of the labor picture laws.
Roberto explained a subset of MEF as practiced at UPS. The larger question still remained and I addressed. At what point does UPS manage properly and staff the business needs with union pilots rather than non union pilots under the agreement to make essential service for our customers?
UPS is very smart, this is not mismanagement, rather brilliant management to help break the IPA. Many IPA pilots assume UPS is stupid, far from it. Most of the 'stupid' is planned and executed in a very coordinated fashion. They fail to appreciate the resolve of the IPA though.

IPA understood the business realities of the market, reason we volunteered our dollars to give back to UPS to keep excess pilot labor on the property. It was cost neutral to UPS. UPS greed and desire for FedEX 4a2b language got the best of them though. They wanted to make a premium off the situation and wanted a contractual concessions that would save hundreds of millions going forward. Understand it's business, but it will prove a faulty strategy as IPA is steadfast that we will not give the concessions beyond the actual cost of maintaining our pilots on the property in same day dollars.

Night_Hawk
02-28-2010, 04:12 PM
I am not a lawyer but I looked up that paragraph and my question is do our subcontractors use airplanes leased from UPS? Read 1.D1.c(5)i to see where I am coming from.

Disclaimer; recovering from a head injury, had a beer or two tonight, and may have completely read that paragraph wrong :D


I do not believe they do, therefore I do not see any monies being payed to furloughed IPAers.

N_H

JustUnderPar
02-28-2010, 05:25 PM
A lot, probably most, of the management emergency flying (MEF) is not due to lack of crews per se, but from flights that get interrupted out of domicile, or flights that do not fit the contractual reserve call-out time or maximum duty time. We normally have crews around the country at home that can get to the out-of-domicile flights, or reserves that are available for those and the others, but not in a timely manner.

These flights, in good times, are covered by volunteers who pick up overtime at 150%. When our crews decline the opportunity, then management gets to fly them. Adding more pilots will not satisy these situations.

How does that fit in with your judgment?

Gee Bob. I know you love this place but come on. You normally have good information to pass? What is up? You upset no one can pick up OT? or take JA's? You see how many uncovered flights get taken by "management" in Anchorage? Last time I checked it was still a domicile:D

Roberto
02-28-2010, 05:36 PM
...UPS has cut back on Hots...

Salty,

By my count, there are currently 17 airport standby aircraft per weekday

757- (11 total) 4 in SDF, 2 each in MIA and ONT, and one each in DFW, RFD, and PHL.

A300- (4 total) 2 in SDF and 1 each in RFD and EWR

MD11- 2 in SDF

Is that a cut back in Hots?

Roberto
02-28-2010, 05:46 PM
Gee Bob. I know you love this place but come on. You normally have good information to pass? What is up? You upset no one can pick up OT? or take JA's? You see how many uncovered flights get taken by "management" in Anchorage? Last time I checked it was still a domicile:D
I just count things and leave the good or bad up to the reader...

I haven't been looking at ANC other than reading in the forums that there is a problem with the reserve times not in complete sync with the needs, thus some JA attempts (or posts stating that some reserve crews accept the non-contractual times). That would fall in the category of "flights that do not fit the contractual reserve call-out time or maximum duty time."

If expect UPS is keeping good records of the reasons for MEF, but those are not available to me. I did qualify my post with "a lot, probably most" but that is just a guess across all fleets.

Lester Burnham
02-28-2010, 05:46 PM
Roberto,

Those are scheduled hots. Most nights, tons of SDF 757 crews get called in to sit hot. I know you think this open time ban is silly, but it is having an impact. It's not going to be a factor everyday, but the company will have to account for the fact that they can't rely on the IPA pilots to pick up the slack when some kind of IROP or other unusual increase in crew requirements.

UPSFO4LIFE
02-28-2010, 06:23 PM
Go look at SDF 75 opentime. Anyone who says the ban is not working, nice try. And good luck to UPS in getting all those flights covered.

SaltyDog
02-28-2010, 06:33 PM
Salty,

By my count, there are currently 17 airport standby aircraft per weekday
.......
Is that a cut back in Hots?

Roberto,
Historically, yes. Post Teamsters team driving was first major impact on Hot coverage with reduced 4 day a week flying. Hotel Hots then cut.
Now you'll notice that even in your count that they do not have daily coverage. UPS bid packages show gaps. Example: MD-11 Hot has one each early and late Hot in SDF. Those lines have a week long gap. There is no scheduled Hot in the bid package. UPS used to have scheduled, bid package coverage for each night. No longer, Check out the 757 early and late. They double some nights and have singles on others weeks. You have counted lines at 17 Hot Lines, does not equate to 17 per night though with the gaps. Additionally, in last several years, Supervisors are now built RSV lines to include their 'FLY' days.
Presently, UPS is restricting some fleets regarding supervisor Proficiency Flying. The Supervisors will be assigned by scheds, they don't pick at their choice.
My other questions still linger in the ethernet, most notably how does FedEx manage the business with line pilots that UPS cannot?

JustUnderPar
02-28-2010, 06:44 PM
Roberto,
My other questions still linger in the ethernet, most notably how does FedEx manage the business with line pilots that UPS cannot?


FedEx works "with" their pilots. There is not a "hostile" relationship between the two(at least not constantly like here).
Of course there are people here that REALLY love it (both the job and who they work for). I wonder when the next lawsuit will be filed to change the age again. After all, some people just NEVER want to retire.:(

Roberto
02-28-2010, 06:46 PM
Go look at SDF 75 opentime. Anyone who says the ban is not working, nice try. And good luck to UPS in getting all those flights covered.

I followed your suggestion and looked at both FO and CPT SDF 75 opentime, and they both look about the same. However, I only counted FO and got:

52 reserves of all types or about 780 reserve days in the pay period.

About 72 days of OT.

Be careful, or you will be accused of setting me up <g>

Roberto
02-28-2010, 06:51 PM
...Those lines have a week long gap...

Salty,
The week-long gap in domicile Hot lines (3 weeks of Hot and one week off) is historically placed in VTO lines, or if unable, in OT. The out-station Hots are 2 lines but I only counted as 1 Hot. Granted, weekends are not covered in the bid packages.
Regards,
Roberto

SaltyDog
02-28-2010, 07:08 PM
Salty,
The week-long gap in some Hot lines (3 weeks of Hot and one week off) is historically placed in VTO lines, or if unable, in OT.
Regards,
Roberto

Historically, yes. Historically, we used to have more hots.<g>
Sat Hot for better part of 10 years and used to track all the fleets out of curiosity and scheduling practices. They have learned to tighten it up and are more comfortable with less line pilots as they managed the supervisor flying closer.

CactusCrew
03-01-2010, 02:58 AM
I just count things and leave the good or bad up to the reader...

I haven't been looking at ANC other than reading in the forums that there is a problem with the reserve times not in complete sync with the needs, thus some JA attempts (or posts stating that some reserve crews accept the non-contractual times). That would fall in the category of "flights that do not fit the contractual reserve call-out time or maximum duty time."

If expect UPS is keeping good records of the reasons for MEF, but those are not available to me. I did qualify my post with "a lot, probably most" but that is just a guess across all fleets.


Not exactly ... nearly all of the ANC flying syncs perfectly with all RSV shifts.

What you read about is the fact that they run out of RSVA crews and then call a RSVB or RSVC crew and offer them an early release so that they can be legal for an early assignment the next day. An assignment that is perfectly legal for a RSVA and has been in open time for days. They are simply running out of reserves in the proper shifts, not flights that are outside of reserve windows.

In the first week of 10-02 I was one of 2 FOs available on RSVA. We both got called in on the same trip. UPS went for 3-4 days without any RSVA coverage.

How can they do this comfortably ? The management airline answers all calls at all times. It is the ONLY reason they can even consider a furlough in ANC, at least on the B747. I won't pretend to know what is up on the MD in ANC ...

Roberto
03-01-2010, 05:59 AM
CC- Thanks for the clarification.

Roberto
03-01-2010, 01:34 PM
Historically, yes. Historically, we used to have more hots.<g>
Salty,
I think one of the last times I was on Hot it was with you in SDF <g>. Besides the DC8, there was an A300 and a 757. Now there are 2 757's, an A300, and an MD11. Has there been a reduction in out-station Hots to make up for the additional one in SDF?
Regards,
Roberto

JustUnderPar
03-02-2010, 07:08 PM
So, if one of these "management" guys shows up to operate and they've had an extremely long duty day. Do we "have" to fly with them when we feel they are not safe? Look at what TG and MM did on the MD just recently.

Didn't some of these tools take guys off flights in ANC recently for commuting into a flight, yet they are doing the very crap they felt was unacceptable?


Can't have it both ways now can you? I know I dont want to operate with ANYONE that runs that type of schedule. Seems REALLY UNSAFE!!

Try this I guess!
How to File a Whistleblower Complaint (http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/whistleblower/complaint/)

Signal Delta
03-02-2010, 10:22 PM
I'm not so sure the Taft-Hartley (NRLA) or Right-to-work laws (amendment to NLRA) really have any impact on us since we're under the Railway Labor Act. These (NLRA & RLA) are two completely different sets of labor laws. Apples & oranges, if I remember correctly.

CactusCrew
03-03-2010, 03:09 AM
So, if one of these "management" guys shows up to operate and they've had an extremely long duty day. Do we "have" to fly with them when we feel they are not safe? Look at what TG and MM did on the MD just recently.

Didn't some of these tools take guys off flights in ANC recently for commuting into a flight, yet they are doing the very crap they felt was unacceptable?

Can't have it both ways now can you? I know I dont want to operate with ANYONE that runs that type of schedule. Seems REALLY UNSAFE!!

Try this I guess!
How to File a Whistleblower Complaint (http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/whistleblower/complaint/)



That makes for an interesting contradiction ...

Tigerpilot1995
03-03-2010, 07:46 AM
Didn't some of these tools take guys off flights in ANC recently for commuting into a flight, yet they are doing the very crap they felt was unacceptable?


I was one of those people that got a talking to from MM. He couldn't have been more unprofessional to me. I have his itinerary printed off from the Flight Ops site. I welcome another "discussion" from him.

FYI, I wasn't removed from the flight and nor are they doing that with anyone. It is the CA who will remove you if it comes to that.

J Dawg
03-03-2010, 11:33 AM
I was one of those people that got a talking to from MM. He couldn't have been more unprofessional to me. I have his itinerary printed off from the Flight Ops site. I welcome another "discussion" from him.

FYI, I wasn't removed from the flight and nor are they doing that with anyone. It is the CA who will remove you if it comes to that.

Perhaps it needs to "come to that" for some of these manglers..

FR8TFLYER
03-03-2010, 04:06 PM
I used to think MM was an OK guy. The last few months have shown what a POS this guy really is. A sad day if he ever gets into the IPA.

767pilot
03-03-2010, 05:10 PM
You are right in that this type of situation is regulated by the individual States decision on whether or not they will be a right to work state.


Not so much. Federal law, RLA, supersedes state law (right to work). Doesn't matter if it is a right to work state or not.

As for your common sense question; if it were me in the judges or arbitrators seat, it would seem to me that it would be unreasonable for the company to furlough pilots then claim that they were in an emergency situation because of lack of crews.

Reminds me of the guy that kills his parents and then begs for the mercy of the court because he is an orphan

newKnow
03-03-2010, 10:11 PM
Not so much. Federal law, RLA, supersedes state law (right to work). Doesn't matter if it is a right to work state or not.




767,

You kind of chopped up my paragraph. When I said "this type of situation," I was referring to union shops in general, not your UPS situation. I apologize for the lack of clarity:

[Quote From New K]

"What is allowed by Taft are union shops where the company hires an individual and then afterward, they must join the union (or, at least pay dues) within 30 days or their employment start date. You are right in that this type of situation is regulated by the individual States decision on whether or not they will be a right to work state." [End Quote]

Just to keep the record straight, I believe the only points I have been making was that 1.) there is no such thing as a closed shop anymore, 2.) what your union has negotiated in your CBA does matter & 3.) past practices allowed by your union will be taken into consideration by the decision-maker if it ever comes to that.

As for your analogy, that in todays times may unfortunately be a true case, I think that is a perfect example. You guys are in good shape if that were ever to happen. If I were the IPA, I'd be filing papers the second your managers were flying a minute more than what they were before the furloughs (if they happen). Once again, good luck.

New K



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1