Dp Vcp Fo
04-16-2007 | 07:47 PM
#51
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Totally untrue!!! It was disputed for the length of the duty day, which is extremely long(>13hrs) and unrealistic turn time with custom clearance. Turns out that the times worked and the sequence didn't exceed duty limits so we lost the dispute. It had nothing to do with the pay status of the operating pilots. Let's at least have an honest discussion. This was a great pairing, now it isn't so great but it isn't the fault of any line pilot.
04-16-2007 | 08:01 PM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
From: B777
See preceding posts dude, and please read for comprehension. This sequence was disputed TWO months in a row and the cumlative volunteer rate was over 50%. You lose disputes primarily because they are voluntarily flown (see TonyC's post) not because "everything just happened to work out this month".
04-16-2007 | 08:20 PM
#53
Organizational Learning
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,948
Likes: 0
From: Directly behind the combiner
Apr SIG Notes: #564, #3050 [VCP] are disputed because both these pairings push the second duty day envelope at 13+09.
Scorecard: 12 pilot slots:
Flown: 3 assigned on Reserve; 2 Volunteers and 1blocked calendar (~50%)
Sched: 2 Open (yea!); 3 Volunteers and 1 blocked calendar (50% already)
who will give me odds the blocked calendars are volunteers too
564/12 Apr 07 F/O was awarded Line #642
Block Display
Line 642 MEM 11 APR07
Code:
--1st Week-- --2nd Week-- --3rd Week-- --4th Week-- --C/O-- Dt Trp1 Trp2 Dt Trp1 Trp2 Dt Trp1 Trp2 Dt Trp1 Trp2 Dt Trp1 Trp2 Dt Trip —— ———— ———— —— ———— ———— —— ———— ———— —— ———— ———— —— ———— ———— —— ———— 2 9 - 16 23 30 - 3 10 - 17 24 1 4 549 11 18 549 25 2 5 - 12 19 - 26 3 6 13 20 27 550 4 7 14 21 28 - 5 8 555 15 22 29 - 6 7
3050/19 Apr 07 RF2 is actually a Captain who was awarded Line #281
Block Display
Line 281 MEM 11 APR07
Code:
--1st Week-- --2nd Week-- --3rd Week-- --4th Week-- --C/O-- Dt Trp1 Trp2 Dt Trp1 Trp2 Dt Trp1 Trp2 Dt Trp1 Trp2 Dt Trp1 Trp2 Dt Trip —— ———— ———— —— ———— ———— —— ———— ———— —— ———— ———— —— ———— ———— —— ———— 2 9 16 434 23 30 - 3 10 17 - 24 1 4 11 18 152 25 335 2 5 12 19 60 26 166 3 6 13 393 20 271 27 158 4 7 14 - 21 - 28 307 5 8 15 - 22 29 561 6 7
.
04-17-2007 | 05:49 AM
#54
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
See preceding posts dude, and please read for comprehension. This sequence was disputed TWO months in a row and the cumlative volunteer rate was over 50%. You lose disputes primarily because they are voluntarily flown (see TonyC's post) not because "everything just happened to work out this month".
04-17-2007 | 06:37 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,184
Likes: 0
From: leaning to the left
Good ideas...For the next contract. I've got lots of those, myself.
But, I have to say that I would much rather not waste much negotiating capital on this. I'd rather that the greedy fools that pick up DP's from open time, just stop!!
Our scheduling representatives are asking that we use what is written in the current contract to rid ourselves of these onerous pairings.
They're not onerous, you say?
Until you, or any of us for that matter, are willing to step up to the plate and volunteer our time on the SIG...I suggest we take their recommendations to heart. Or, just bid reserve if you want to fly them.
But, I have to say that I would much rather not waste much negotiating capital on this. I'd rather that the greedy fools that pick up DP's from open time, just stop!!
Our scheduling representatives are asking that we use what is written in the current contract to rid ourselves of these onerous pairings.
They're not onerous, you say?
Until you, or any of us for that matter, are willing to step up to the plate and volunteer our time on the SIG...I suggest we take their recommendations to heart. Or, just bid reserve if you want to fly them.
04-17-2007 | 07:13 AM
#56
Part Time Employee
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,918
Likes: 0
From: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Perfect example of "believing whatever you want", Disputes aren't lost because pairing are voluntarily flown. They are lost for a variety of reasons depending on the dispute which at some point, may consider the pay code of the pilot operating but if you think its the primary reason...you need to change your reading material, this forum is rotting your brain. If you can't make the case that a sequence is onerous, restricting it to reserves won't help...neither will "yelling unsafe". Reserve pilots should be yelling...If its unsafe, why force it on us. Our leadership should work to change the language...Let mgmnt fly disputed pairings. How about a flex instead of bumping a out and back, flying a DP for experience in the real world. Let's even relieve mgnt of the requirement to bump a line pilot (DP only)...a cost savings and productivity increase... Instant Credibility for the training dept. Think of solutions and stop blaming other pilots. This is a failed MEC initiative not a contract violation...let's change strategy.
I've seen many pairings change simply because they are in open time repeatedly.
If a pairing remains in open time and the only ones who fly it are reserves (if available) or skeds has to call numerous people for draft they will get the message.
The SIG hs asked us not to fly DP's to give them some ammo.
All that is being asked is that we honor the SIG's request and not fly disputed pairings voluntarilly. How hard is that to understand?
04-17-2007 | 08:04 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 Capt
Perfect example of "believing whatever you want", Disputes aren't lost because pairing are voluntarily flown. They are lost for a variety of reasons depending on the dispute which at some point, may consider the pay code of the pilot operating but if you think its the primary reason...you need to change your reading material, this forum is rotting your brain. If you can't make the case that a sequence is onerous, restricting it to reserves won't help...neither will "yelling unsafe". Reserve pilots should be yelling...If its unsafe, why force it on us. Our leadership should work to change the language...Let mgmnt fly disputed pairings. How about a flex instead of bumping a out and back, flying a DP for experience in the real world. Let's even relieve mgnt of the requirement to bump a line pilot (DP only)...a cost savings and productivity increase... Instant Credibility for the training dept. Think of solutions and stop blaming other pilots. This is a failed MEC initiative not a contract violation...let's change strategy.
You can do an LOA any time both sides agree...
Its better than posting other guys scheds on the internet don't ya think!!! Duh!!!!
04-17-2007 | 11:13 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,304
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 Captain
04-17-2007 | 12:19 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
From: 767 Cap
