Ask Tony ?
03-29-2007, 08:07 AM
#21
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: DC-10 Capt.
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by TonyC
No problem -- and no guarantee I'm correct, either. 
Just out of curiosity, what did you expect to happen with those 2 R-days? Did you think they would stay there, or disappear altogether, or move someplace else?
.
Just out of curiosity, what did you expect to happen with those 2 R-days? Did you think they would stay there, or disappear altogether, or move someplace else?
.
03-29-2007, 08:07 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
FedEx layover disruption pay
25.S.2.c is the reference
Here is the scenario, you have a trip scheduled to layover OAK, OAK, OAK.
It gets revised multiple times, and winds up being, OAK, PHX, LAX, OAK (as a result of an additional duty period being added)
Your simple pilot perspective is that 2 of the layovers changed, thus, qualifying for disruption pay. Companies perspective is that 2 of the layovers were the same, thus, no disruption pay.
Here is the scenario, you have a trip scheduled to layover OAK, OAK, OAK.
It gets revised multiple times, and winds up being, OAK, PHX, LAX, OAK (as a result of an additional duty period being added)
Your simple pilot perspective is that 2 of the layovers changed, thus, qualifying for disruption pay. Companies perspective is that 2 of the layovers were the same, thus, no disruption pay.
03-29-2007, 08:29 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: HKG Bus Driver
Posts: 115
Originally Posted by kronan
25.S.2.c is the reference
Here is the scenario, you have a trip scheduled to layover OAK, OAK, OAK.
It gets revised multiple times, and winds up being, OAK, PHX, LAX, OAK (as a result of an additional duty period being added)
Your simple pilot perspective is that 2 of the layovers changed, thus, qualifying for disruption pay. Companies perspective is that 2 of the layovers were the same, thus, no disruption pay.
Here is the scenario, you have a trip scheduled to layover OAK, OAK, OAK.
It gets revised multiple times, and winds up being, OAK, PHX, LAX, OAK (as a result of an additional duty period being added)
Your simple pilot perspective is that 2 of the layovers changed, thus, qualifying for disruption pay. Companies perspective is that 2 of the layovers were the same, thus, no disruption pay.
03-29-2007, 09:25 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
Extra duty period was paid. Landing disruption not paid....because the company's position is the extra landing occurred because of the extra duty period.
Company says Y=3, but X=1 because 2 of the layovers matched a scheduled location (paying no attention to the 2 that don't)
Just got an email from the union and the union's position is Y=1 (scheduled layover locations) and X=0 (because OAK canx out OAK)
Company says Y=3, but X=1 because 2 of the layovers matched a scheduled location (paying no attention to the 2 that don't)
Just got an email from the union and the union's position is Y=1 (scheduled layover locations) and X=0 (because OAK canx out OAK)
Last edited by kronan; 03-29-2007 at 09:57 AM.
03-29-2007, 09:34 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD-11 F/O
Posts: 319
Originally Posted by kronan
25.S.2.c is the reference
Here is the scenario, you have a trip scheduled to layover OAK, OAK, OAK.
It gets revised multiple times, and winds up being, OAK, PHX, LAX, OAK (as a result of an additional duty period being added)
Your simple pilot perspective is that 2 of the layovers changed, thus, qualifying for disruption pay. Companies perspective is that 2 of the layovers were the same, thus, no disruption pay.
Here is the scenario, you have a trip scheduled to layover OAK, OAK, OAK.
It gets revised multiple times, and winds up being, OAK, PHX, LAX, OAK (as a result of an additional duty period being added)
Your simple pilot perspective is that 2 of the layovers changed, thus, qualifying for disruption pay. Companies perspective is that 2 of the layovers were the same, thus, no disruption pay.
Let me start this with I THINK:
You should get 3+30 Extra Duty Pay (25.V), but not Landing Disruption pay (25.S.2.a.ii.c or 4.Y.2). You should also get Disruption (1+30) for >50% layover change as defined by (25.S.2.c Note 1+2+5) [y=3, x=2, (x/y) > .5]
03-29-2007, 09:39 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
So the companies position is you had two out of 4 layovers in Oakland or 50%. The matching location only not date or time is the part that they are falling back on.
1. y = number of scheduled layovers when the pairing was awarded/assigned to the pilot.
2. x = number of scheduled layover locations that can not be paired with actual layover locations (matching location only, not date or time).
But definitely worth a grievance to get x and y better defined when an extra duty period is added.
1. y = number of scheduled layovers when the pairing was awarded/assigned to the pilot.
2. x = number of scheduled layover locations that can not be paired with actual layover locations (matching location only, not date or time).
But definitely worth a grievance to get x and y better defined when an extra duty period is added.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 03-29-2007 at 09:55 AM.
03-29-2007, 09:57 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
Company’s perspective is Y=3, and X=1. Only 1 of the layover locations can not be matched with an original layover location because of the location only note in parenthesis:
contract clipping:
1. y = number of scheduled layovers when the pairing was awarded/assigned to the pilot.
2. x = number of scheduled layover locations that can not be paired with actual layover locations (matching location only, not date or time).
Company’s position
>We are matching location only, not the date or time of the
> layover.
> > It doesn't matter when the actual layover took place, we are simply determining how many Scheduled layover cities match Actual layover cities.
contract clipping:
1. y = number of scheduled layovers when the pairing was awarded/assigned to the pilot.
2. x = number of scheduled layover locations that can not be paired with actual layover locations (matching location only, not date or time).
Company’s position
>We are matching location only, not the date or time of the
> layover.
> > It doesn't matter when the actual layover took place, we are simply determining how many Scheduled layover cities match Actual layover cities.
03-29-2007, 10:21 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD-11 F/O
Posts: 319
Originally Posted by Purple F/O
Let me start this with I THINK:
You should get 3+30 Extra Duty Pay (25.V), but not Landing Disruption pay (25.S.2.a.ii.c or 4.Y.2). You should also get Disruption (1+30) for >50% layover change as defined by (25.S.2.c Note 1+2+5) [y=3, x=2, (x/y) > .5]
You should get 3+30 Extra Duty Pay (25.V), but not Landing Disruption pay (25.S.2.a.ii.c or 4.Y.2). You should also get Disruption (1+30) for >50% layover change as defined by (25.S.2.c Note 1+2+5) [y=3, x=2, (x/y) > .5]
Oops, my above math is incorrect. I misread the notes(small font on bbery).
I think x=1 (or even 0 if more than one scheduled layover can be matched to the same flown layover (3oaks, vs 2oaks)). Then you wouldn't get the layover change pay, just extra duty pay.
Shed-Oak, Oak, Oak(y=3)
Flown-Oak, phx lax, Oak x=1
Last edited by Purple F/O; 03-29-2007 at 10:34 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
