FDX28

But he bid to a DIFFERENT position prior to going to training. So he GAVE UP that prior bid. Or show me in the contract where you hold that training slot even if you bid to another position. Show me in the contract where it says "if you bid MD11 in one domicile and bid to another prior to going to training, one shall keep his previous bid." I can't find it. I understand the reasoning behind it but if it's not in the contract the union was supposed to fight it. And they didn't.

Tony, you said you got "screwed" because a junior guy got to MEM MD while you were in ANC. Did you get paid less during this time? How many tickets did you have to come out of pocket to commute during those three months? Most times I jumpseat it cost me approx $2 on company and $3 offline. Cookies don't cost that much. You're comparing apples to oranges. Perhaps you should have complained to the union then. $150 would have covered all those cookies.

Jake Speed

But he was awarded a new crew position prior to training for ANC MD11FO. Let's say Pilot B was a 727SO awarded but awaiting MEM B727FO (From Bid -1) prior to Bid #1. The MEM727FO slot is his so he should go to MEM 727FO training and then MEM MD11FO training according to your logic? The company would and has argued 24 A.5 to the understanding that since he is a 727SO and hasn't begun 727FO training and a subsequent posting awards him MEM MD11FO, then no 727FO training for you.

LEROY

Tony C,
I WISH I could point to a section in our CBA that describes how the union (you) rolled over on us, but I can't, because it doesn't exist; THAT'S why I emailed the union. I wanted it on record somewhere that there needs to be CBA-defined process for subsequent bidding.

On the bid of 02-02, a pilot grieved the fact that he was not allowed to go to training for his earlier bid before going to training for a subsequent bid award. ALPA went against mgmt. As of the signing of our current CBA that grievance had STILL not been settled; it was dropped.
Since ALPA originally fought FOR the idea that you should be allowed to go to training for an earlier bid, they did not feel they had a chance to win a grievance in which they argued for THE EXACT OPPOSITE position. So they didn't bother to try.

Every time I, or anyone I've talked to, has been awarded a different position on a subsequent bid, the original training date has been cancelled; once even only DAYS prior to beginning training. In this instance, the company DID NOT DO THAT, I think, because they needed bodies in ANC, and could afford to say, "Oops" and get away with it (see above paragraph).

I respect your posts on this forum and I believe you put out good info and wisdom on many issues. But on this issue, ALPA rolled over on us. They believed they had to to protect dignity in dealing w/ mgmt. What I still don't understand is, why am I entitled to receive $150? Where did that figure come from? Why didn't I receive notification until speaking with ALPA? Why hasn't EVERYONE affected by this issue been emailed the same $150 check notification? THAT'S what I believe smells foul.

TonyC

I can't show you that, and you can't show where a pilot loses the training slot. I can show you where the Company can act in accordance with its needs in making that determination, and I can point you to past practices of the Company. They both support the Company's actions in this case.

I don't believe I said I was screwed. I said a pilot junior to me was activated in the seat position and domicile where I was due to transfer before I was transferred. Not only did it cost me cookies, it cost me crashpad and transportation expenses, and extra time away from my family. Whether it was $2, $3, $150, or $150,000, the principle was the same. My point is, the provisions in the Contract cut both ways, and the Union did not have a leg to stand on to grieve the practice.




It's up to the Company, and the Company's "needs." They've done both. They have trained in order, and they have "skipped" training. It all depends on where they need bodies the worst. Nothing in the Contract requires they do it either way, drop or retain the training.




.

Gooch121

Tony,

In the short time I've been with the company, each bid generates it's own training letter, listing class start dates and individuals assigned to each class. Following bids generate their own training letters and begin where the preceding training letter stops.

So in Jake Speed's example of Pilot A & B, how does Pilot A (bid 2/training letter 2) start training before Pilot B (bid 1/training letter 1)? Pilots on training letter 1 should be complete or have entered training before pilots assigned to training letter 2 enter the picture. Remember, in Jake's example both pilots had not entered any training as a result of bid 1 and both originally had slots on training letter 1. Pilot A re-bid on Bid 2 and was assigned a class on training letter 2 earlier than Pilot B's training letter 1 class date. Seems unusual to me. In Jake's case, how do the facts of the situation stack up to the intent of passover pay?

As for Contract Enforcement stating "we" had no case, anybody who has ever been to an arbitration knows it's not always who has the tightest case who wins. If the client has the backbone, lawyers are trained, good ones anyway, to argue their client's case to the best of their ability, regardless of case's strengths or weakness. I have personally witnessed arbitrators question the substance of a lawyers position. The lawyers response: "It is an argument." In the end, this lawyer saved his client a large sum of money with his "argument."

As I understand our MEC's position on the issue, they didn't want to waste the $$ necessary to grieve the issue. Yet, our Chairman proposes a position on retro which he hopes/doesn't think will pass. His support/position on retro may not have a direct $$ cost, but then how do you put a price on unity??

I

TonyC

While this may be the expereince of yourself and everyone you've talked to, it is not the only way the Company has ever handled it. Training dates have been honored in the past when new awards were made, and that past practice is what formed the basis of the 05-03/06-02 Grievance.


Good questions. I was at the Joint LEC Meeting in February where it was explained, and I didn't completely understand the money award. I'll bet you could get the answer from the Contract Enforcement folks if you were to ask nicely.

I don't know about that either. Again, I'll bet you can call and ask. WHo sends the check, ALPA or FedEx? When something smells foul around my house, I investigate, and don't stop until the smell is gone. If I thought ALPA was trying to hide something, I'd be in the office, not on this keyboard.




.

TonyC

"The" training letter is a bit elusive. It changes from time to time, even between Vacancy Postings. A simulator may break, delaying training. A pilot may have difficulty completing training, delaying training. A pilot may drop out of training, freeing up simulator time. Instructors may get sick, Instructors may go back to the line, new Instructors may be hired -- any number of things may happen that affect the training pipeline. The training letter is a best guess of when everyone due training will receive that training. It is not a guarantee that the training will occur, much less on the published dates. If done properly, the training letter will never be "finished" when a subsequent Vacancy Bid is posted, and awarded. That doesn't result in one training letter that must be finished, and another training letter standing alongside that is also in effect. There is just one training letter.


In the case of Pilot A and Pilot B, they were both assigned training dates in two different pipelines, one for Memphis, and the other for Anchorage. When Pilot A recieved the subsequent bid award, the Company had the option of moving him to the Memphis pipeline, or keeping him in the Anchorage pipeline and assigning him a Base transfer date. They chose the latter option.


I'm not an expert in arbitration. If you are, perhaps you should volunteer your services to the committee. My NON-expert opinion is that it would be foolish to grieve everything that ticks us off on the basis that we could form an "it is an argument."


The money would have only been wasted had the cost been overshadowed by the benefit. That's what they do -- they wiegh the cost versus the expected benefit. That's what we pay them to do. It would be foolish to take every thing we have to complain about to an arbitrator. I think they made a wise decision.

I think this issue has certainly heated some folks up, but I don't think it will fracture our unity. One might assume that everyone is opposed to our Over-60 pilots exercising their seniority rights except members and officers of our MEC and the over-60 guys themselves, but I think that one might be wrong. Certainly that viewpoint has been vocally expressed here, and by a few at recent meetings, but there are quite a few voices that haven't been heard. There are far more people that haven't expressed an opininion one way or another, and the vast majority of our members haven't felt it important enough to show up at any of the meetings. We haven't taken a poll on that particular issue, but I think you'd be surprised at the results if we did.

In any event, I think we'll pull through this all the much stronger for having wrestled with a difficult issue and not poked each others' eyes out in the process. What's that saying, what doesn't kill us makes us stronger? This won't kill us.




.

LEROY

TonyC,
Again, great advice. In fact I DID investigate, to a degree, when I received the email stating I would receive the payment.
I responded to the email and asked, "why am I being compensated for a settlement of an issue (grievance 02-02) which I was not even on the property to be affected by?" I also stated that I was affected by the events of postings 05-03 and 06-02, and asked if that was the reason.

E. Iverson replied to me that YES, I had hit the nail on the head, YES, it was a very complicated issue, YES, there is a grey area in our CBA concerning this, YES, call and talk to me about it, etc, etc. But I'm still at a loss to explain why I had to ask about it to receive it. I have always tried to maintain professional courtesy, and I certainly "asked nicely."

Jake Speed

And here in lies the problem. Which is right? Past practice or what the company feels would be cost saving measures for training based on equipment? The purpose of the contract is to prevent these ambiguity type situations. When they happen to pop up, the Union's purpose is to reach a definitive solution and consider that "Proper". The company has had it both ways. If past practice prevails, as the Union as always argued for (ie protect seniority), then Pilot B is entitled to passover pay. In this instance, Pilot A is trained for Anchorage and Pilot B is not entitled passover pay. The Union chose to disregard past practice, reach a settlement with the company, and Pilot B who is Senior, does not reap the benefit (passover pay, signing bonus etc.). Is the union supposed to argue for Pilot B's (whose paying dues) rights or the company's rights? The union chose to ignore Pilot B's complaint and side with the company arbrogating seniority.

Busboy

Tony,

Just curious...What would happen if the 727/SO was awarded ANC MD11/FO on Bid#1 and 727/CAP on Bid#2? Because he decided he didn't want to go to the MAdDog?

I know that is the way, myself and many of my friends have gotten out of unfavorable training dates. By bidding off it, on the next bid. Are you saying the company could have forced me to go to school for something or somewhere I bid off of?