JohnBurke

Grundt, gumpscheck, johnny knoxville, and Industry Strd have all posted in this thread with the implication that they are authors of the site under discussion. Different identities of the same person; they all seem to attack other posters in the same manner, use similar language, and reference new material put up or defend the source.

It is full of holes, incidentally, and OAI isn't a cargo company. Not all cargo operators are listed.

Which "author" will attack this time?

mrvmo

I count three errors on the first page of the overall comparison chart for UPS. Not busting balls....just pointing out.

midengineracer

Seems to me, if you can declare an error, you know where it is located in the contract and should be willing to put that information in your post.

IE, FedEX 4.F.2.a Trip rig should be 1:3.75 (yes, that's correct in the comparison they provided)

The OP put up a product, added source material (proof/evidence) and asked for clarification if something is wrong. If you declare something wrong, you should post your proof/evidence. Then it can be verified (either by them or by other people following the thread).


Not sure if the OP is getting revenue, or just did this to help other pilots out. If it is the latter, seems like people on here that are interested in helping out would be more than happy to provide details of the error. If the former is true, it seems like people would still be happy to point out the specific error.


The post stating that per diem was transposed between FedEX and UPS is a pretty good example. In the document I just downloaded, the per diem for FedEX was correct (from FedEX 5.A.1).


Seems like the author wants to fix things that are identified and can be reasonably verified.


If I had personally put all this together, I would ignore claimed errors that weren't provided with a section. I believe it is justified, because I know that I interpreted the data that I presented. Of course, the transposition error, I would go back and check because it is specific enough as well as being a data entry error...

Industry Strnd

https://cargofacts.com/atsg-adds-777-platform-through-omni-air-acquisition/

Appears onmi will be a cargo co! Also hard to say the contracts are wrong. So far don't see any contract paragraphs cited that are wrong. I wonder why? And I wonder why people seem to be so angry over data that is being put out to help pilots decide the best place to work and maybe pressure their union to raise the bar. Must be management worried pilots might actually work together!

BoilerUP

UPS monthly hourly guarantee, perdiem, international override and rigs are incorrect.

Lockheed

This has not been fixed

mrvmo

Boiler is correct.....those are incorrect.....all the correct figures for these pay categories is on the UPS profile on this website.

mrvmo

Not sure its that conspiratory, and really don't think guys are angry.........it's that some of your numbers are wrong and guys are pointing it out so you can make the correct changes. If one is using this to decide "the best place to work" it should have accurate info....wouldn't you agree?

Industry Strnd

Not an error. $286 is the final rate of the cba, not the rate right now! Go to the cba and use the rate now and you will see the chart is correct.

Industry Strnd

So I just crossed checked UPS CBA the rigs list in the cba are what is depicted in the chart, the Perdiem listed in Article 12 is correct in the chart. And the guarantee is corrected in the chart for 12 bid periods. Apears the only mistake is the International override. Which appears to be Fedex.

After mutiple checks the ACMI rates are correct and way short of where they should be. And the retirement it's short too $