Fdx Passover Pay Issue
 

I was in the school house during the MD-11 passover pay issue and didn't have to to follow the issue very close. I would like to know what happened and what was FDX ALPA's response to the issue.

from my understanding someone bid and received MD-11 ANC.

Did that person actually START training? THEN a subsequent bid closed, they received MD11 MEM. Finished training, then activated in MEM prior to more senior crewmembers. Triggering a pass-over pay event.

can someone chime in on what EXACTLY happened? and union's response?

thanks,

Go up to the right hand corner of the Cargo forum page where it says search this forum and type in FedEx passover pay. If you don't have enough posts to search, go to page 21 of the Cargo forum and you will see a thread titled FedEx passover pay started by CoffeeBitch.

That thread has just about all the info you missed while in the school house.

I'd do a link if I knew how but I don't. Sorry.

FJ

Hey, I just noticed. At the bottom of this thread is a category of similar threads. Just click on the Fedex Passover Pay thread started by CoffeeBitch there (it is the same one) and it will take you to it.

Passover pay? Do they pay you guys for all the Jewish holidays, or is it just Passover? We missed that in this contract
Shalom!

Now that is funny!

Bottom line is ALPA rolled over on us (the 200 or so affected) because of a conflicting stance concerning a grievance on standing bid 02-02.
I emailed the union concerning this issue and received both phone and email response to the effect of, "we don't have the negotiating power to resolve this issue with the company, and our lawyers think it's not worth pursuing."
I was ok with that description of the issue until I recieved an email saying would be paid $150 as a result of a settlement concerning grievance on 02-02.
I wasn't even on the property on bid 02-02, so why am I being compensated for a grievance on that bid? I think it's because I b!tched about the issue at hand, the Union knows it's a potential nightmare, and they're trying to buy off the folks who actually see the issue for what it is.
It seems reprehensible that the union not only caved to mgmt on this isssue, but also failed to inform the membership at large, let alone the ones directly affected, and then proceeded to offer "hush money" in the feeble amount of $150 to placate the ones that complained.
I know many people who are affected by this passover pay issue who have not made any written or spoken statements about it who HAVE NOT received a notification of pay.
I have only one conclusion to make; we got SCREWED, the ones that complained about it got $150 in "hush money", the ones that didn't complain were presumed too ignorant to know they got screwed, and were ignored.
My ignorant, "new-hire" three-year-tenure brain has searched the contract through and through, and found NO instance warranting a one-time $150 payment for anything, let alone a contentious passover pay situation.
I'm a simpleton...if it smells wrong...sounds wrong...feels wrong...IT'S WRONG. Why am I getting $150 when half the guys affected by this issue haven't yet? Methinks it because they havent complained yet. So, if you want your HUSH MONEY, you'd better complain NOW that you are P!SSED about not getting due passover pay
P.S. - I recieved a notification of pay three months ago -I have YET to see that $150 check!

Same notification same $0.00 gain in the check. I called contract enforcement when this issue came up back when and was told "..I'm tired of this issue and you should be happy to have a job." At least he was honest..."your not getting any passover pay..."

Lets all remember something here, the union "ALPA" is supposed to give equal representation to us all, regardless of our pay(contribution). I have been an ALPA member for 8 years, 7 of which were with a previous company. My previous company was a regional airline. We were a smaller contribution and therefore received less attention. These are the cold hard facts.

We as an ALPA pilot group and NEED to accept the concerns of all pilots. It makes me worried to here people here making fun of junior guys making a fuss over passover pay. There are senior guys getting their retirement, medical(VEBA), ect.. paid by these junior pilots. Chances are, these same benefits will not be available to the junior guy down the road(Social Security ring a bell).

It seems to me that this transfer issue(ANC-MEM), is in essence, creating a loophole for the company. It is allowing the company to place pilots into positions that are normally bid on, without bidding. It appears that this is a clear position for passover pay. Calling it something different like a "Transfer Bid" is an insult.

I am not affected by this issue, but I can understand the pain that these fellow pilots/ALPA members are feeling. Lets quit calling eachother whiners, greedy, and selfish and remember we are all after the same goal. We all want to be treated with respect, regardless of where we presently sit with the company, or how long we have been here. Its real easy to point the "Selfish" finger towards every pilot here, so lets quit doing it before it ruins the good thing we all have going.

For all of you that have questions on this issue, please call the FDX MEC office and ask to talk to Terry McTigue, Eric Iverson, or Coy Briant and they will fill you in on what happened with this issue.

When a grievance is filed, the Company has an opportunity to reflect on their actions, determine if they complied with the letter and spirit of the contract, and decide to stand by their previous action, or change it. If The Company and the Association disagree on the interpretation, the grievance can ultimately be decided by an arbitrator. He uses the Collective Bargaining Agreement to make his decision.


Please provide the Paragraph of the Contract, and quote it, that you would ask the Arbitrator to use to resolve the dispute in favor of the "grieved" pilot. In other words, what part of the Contract did the Union fail to defend when they (we), as you say, "rolled over" on you?





.

H,

If this communication from the MEC is exactly as you have quoted thn this makes for a very definitive loud and clear complaint that the leadership should address. Have you ever complained to the flock (us) so we could also support you? Just curious.

The fact is the passover pay issue may be "different" than the current "retro" issues for a host of valid, legal reasons.

What has concerned me, and a bunch of other ALPA members in good standing, are these main points.

FDX ALPA seems willing to make a lot of noise and go the mat for the senior guys, but not for the junior ones.

FDX ALPA seems to do make a lot of decisions behind closed doors and does not feel very compelled to include the membership in the process.

Period. That's it. For you guys defending our MEC, all I ask it you emphasize to our current leadership the importance of A) maintaining some transparency and B) letting the junior guys know you are in their camp too.

For you guys upset with the MEC...here's your challenge. Get involved. Go to the meetings. Talk to your block rep. (Poor Sleepy is probably pretty sick of my calls...even though he's not my rep I know him to be a reasonable guy with a good head on his shoulders).

And...the next challenge...I think you need to take the block 8 rep up on his "you know what to do if you don't think I am doing a good job" letter. I think you need to run for block 7 rep too. I think we need some new MEC blood for the same reason we don't want FLEX guys camping in the schoolhouse forever. So--which of you (us) is going to step up?

My pushing for some new blood is based on this premise: WE NEED A STRONG UNION at FedEx. Right now a bunch of guys have lost faith in the process. The way to get it back is not by watching more Dave Webb videos or having someone else explain in contractual terms why getting $150 is the best they can do, but the fight for retro is the right thing to do. The way to get back unity is to have some representation the block members can believe in. Good or bad, right or wrong....I don't think that's the case now. I've always been a supporter of our team on these boards, but I see too many young guys wringing their hands and saying "heck with ALPA" or "I'm done..." or "what does it matter...." A common reaction from the old guard is "well..p*ss on you then" and "who needs you anyway" and "you are being a crybaby". That doesn't help either and remember--those block 8 guys today are the future leadership of the union in 10 years. It does matter, we do need each other, and its time to get ready for the next fight.

This horse is bloody but what they hay...I'll throw a Baby Ruth in the punch bowl.

I called contract enforcement after getting what I thought were the facts. My impression junior dude checked out before senior dude i.e. passover? I don't know so I call the experts and get treated like crap. Now maybe S.A. lost in cricket that day or he got the stiff arm from the wife, who knows who cares. Is it a gray area, loop hole in the CBA or did the company screw up and some dudes got hosed. Is my rep addressing this? Yes. Will anything come of it, who knows? Does the MEC care? I don't know.

Bottom line...was pure seniority protected? No. Why? Too much money for the grievance, couple hundred new guys who don't deserve WB pay, we won't win so why try, other? My opinion is fight hard to protect all seniority equally or don't...but don't preach to the masses that seniority must be protected and only fight certain battles i.e. retro.

Tell me where in The Contract it says that every name added to the MEM MD-11 FO list must be added in seniority order, and I'll agree that seniority was not protected. That is NOT the way it is.

MEM FO's were trained in seniority order.

ANC FO's were transferred to MEM in seniority order.

That's the way the contract is written.

Some of you still seem to think that something should supercede the contract to demand that training and transfers follow the same seniority order. I'm very sorry, but that's just not the way it works.


Nobody said a "couple hundred new guys ... don't deserve WB pay" so we won't grieve it. That's BS, and you know it, and to chartacterize it that way is unfair. It's no surprise that the guys in Contract Enforcement got a little long in the jaw trying to defend themselves against that sort of argument. I think they went beyond the call of duty to even take it the first step of the grievance process, which they did. (That's how some folks actually got money out of the deal.) The fact that they didn't carry the grievance process even further was not because it would have cost money. Every grievance we pursue costs money, and we still grieve. The point is it would have thrown money after a lost cause. It would have been wasted money, because the grievance could not have been won.


Seniority was not abrogated.




Still waiting for the CBA Paragraph.





.

Tony,
I thought in my post I said it was my opinion, I'll have to reread it. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else just stating my opinion. Hope we can still do that.

Obviously it's OK to share opinions -- that's what we're all doing, right?

I clearly understood when you said it's your opinion that the union should fight hard to protect all seniority equally. I agree.


Where we disagree is whether the Passover Pay issue was a seniority issue. In the sentences prior to "My opinion is ..." you stated seniority was not protected because it would have cost too much money for the grievance, and a couple hundred new guys don't deserve WB pay. That sounds like a false claim (senority was not protected) and unfair charges against -- ourselves, us, the union. Those were not the reasons a grievance was not pursued, and that's where our opinions don't matter -- there are facts that belong there.


Was it a seniority issue? I don't believe it was. The Company has two ways of putting bodies in the MEM MD-11 FO seat. One is the training pipeline. The other is the Domicile transfer. The Company used both ways properly, according to the Collective Bargaining Agreement. That's all we can demand.





.

Tony
Agree to disagree. By the way the sentence about the grievance being too much money for new guys who should be happy to have a job etc are the words from contract enforcement ( our union) not me. Two sides to every story just wanted to get another side out in the open.

Pilot A MEM 727SO
Pilot B MEM 727SO

Pilot B is senior to Pilot A

Bid #1
Pilot A awarded ANC MD11FO
Pilot B awarded MEM MD11FO

Bid #2
Pilot A awarded MEM MD11FO

Pilot A has not begun training for ANC MD11FO nor has pilot B begun MEM MD11FO training when Bid #2 is awarded.

Pilot A begins training before Pilot B.

Section 24 A.5
A pilot awarded or assigned a new crew position shall not relinquish his current crew position until he has been activated into his new crew position.

What is Pilot A's crew position? His awarded position is MD11FO. Pilot A is not MD11FO current nor has he been activated in ANC. He should remain a MEM 727SO, his current crew position not his awarded position.

Section 25 D.1 Training/Activation Procedures
Except as provided in Section 24.D.2., D.3. and D.4., (below), required training for a crew position shall be scheduled by SYSTEM SENIORITY, SENIOR FIRST for that crew position.

Again, define crew position. The whole crux of this argument. The contract states a specific crew seat, in a specific aircraft type, at a specific domicile. One would think that Pilot A and Pilot B after Bid #2 have been awarded the same crew position. What's their crew position prior to the award? MEM 727SO?

Section 24 D.2
Passover Pay Due To Junior Pilot’s Early Activation
a. In case of a junior pilot’s activation to a higher paying position out of
seniority order, every senior pilot who meets the following prerequisites
shall be paid as if he had activated in that higher paying position (passover
pay):
i. the junior pilot and the senior pilot(s) hold an award for the same crew
position; and
ii. the junior pilot’s award is from the same posting as the senior pilot’s
award or from a subsequent posting; and
iii. the Company chooses to activate the junior pilot prior to the senior
pilot(s) and the junior pilot’s activation delays the training and
activation of the senior pilot(s).

Section 24 D.2.d
d. If a pilot entitled to passover pay in accordance with Section 24.D.2.,
(above), requires additional training, his passover pay shall not accrue
during the delay in training caused by his performance.
Example:
Pilots with seniority numbers 1-20 are awarded MEMxxxCap from the same
posting. Pilot 18 is activated first, because he needs no training (already having been an xxx Captain at another domicile). Pilot 15 is trained first(due to Company needs in his current crew position) and activated before
any pilot other than pilot 18. Pilots 1-17 don’t get passover pay when pilot
18 is activated because pilot 18’s activation did not delay their activations.
However, pilot 15’s activation did delay their activation (because pilot 15
took the first training slot, thereby delaying their training), and so pilots 1-14
get passover pay beginning when pilot 15 is activated.

Pilot A has not "already have been an xxx FO at another Domicile" he hasn't trained yet nor is he current on the MD11.

Pilot A trains before Pilot B. I believe B is entitled to passover.

Seniority was arbrogated when the the union didn't protect the rights of Pilot B, section 25 D.1

Pilot A trained to go to Anchorage, which is not an abrogation of seniority.


At the point in time when Pilot A transferred from ANC to MEM, he was an "already have been an XXX FO at another Domicile," equal to "Pilot 18" in the example cited, so no passover pay is warranted.



.

Should he have trained for Anchorage? One could argue Section 24 A.5 and 24 D.1 that his current crew position is MEM B727SO and awarded crew position is now MEM MD11FO. Is crew position the same as awarded position???

When he was awarded ANC MD-11 FO, he earned a spot on that list. A subsequent bid might have seen a large number of DC-10 Captains decide to bid ANC MD-11 FO, and they might have all been senior to him. Had these same DC-10 Captains bid the ANC MD-11 FO seat on the first bid, our pilot in question would not have been senior enough to hold it. But they didn't so he did. Now they want it. He was awarded it on the first bid, but he hasn't trained yet. Should he lose the slot because more senior pilots want it on the subsequent bid?

No. The slot is his, and he should be trained. That's how the system works. No abrogation of seniority.




.

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.

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.

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.

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.




.

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

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.




.

"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.




.

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."

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.

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?

According to the contract, the Company's needs determines which is right, and it could vary from one situation to another. Past practice is that both strategies have been used at different times. If the Company had always done it one way, which was to our satisfaction, and then they all of a sudden did it a different way, which was to our dissatisfaction, then it would make sense to launch a grievance based on the deviation from past practice. The trouble is, they've done it both ways, with no complaints, until the Union decided to take up the complaint of a pilot who wanted to keep a training date that the Company cancelled.



In fact, the Union did not choose to ignore Pilot B's complaint. They took the issue up with the Company in the initial phases of the grievance process, realized they were arguing the same logic the Company used to defend the already filed and yet unresolved grievance, and looked for a mirror to wipe the egg off their face. How they could get $150 for a bunch of pilots and then be accused of not going to bat for them after the egg facial amazes me.


You will get no argument from me that the Contract lacks specific guidance on how to handle those situations, and better language could prevent such fiascos in the future. (Such language may have unintended consequences, too.) However, I will not agree that the Union failed to represent a segment of our seniority list in that case. They didn't win, but they did as much as they could.




.

It is my understanding that yes, they could have made you go to school.




.

I would expect someone to go to bat for me, on that one.

And that's half of the problem.

Another 727 SO bids everything at 100% hoping to move up as fast as possible. On the first bid, he's awarded 727 FO, and he has a training date in 3 months. A month before he starts training, he's awarded MD-11 FO with a training date of 18 months from now. If he goes to 727 FO school, he can earn narrow-body FO pay for 15 months. If he doesn't, he'll be stuck earning narrow-body SO pay for the entire time. He wants to keep his training date. You want to drop yours.


Which is right?


Again, the Contract was written to support the needs of the Company. If they need him as an SO more than as an FO, he'll lose the training date. If they need him in the 727 right seat, he'll train. If they need your pilot in ANC as an MD-11 FO until his 727 Captain training rolls around, he'll train. If they don't, he won't.


Depending on the situation, there are benefits to both ways -- for the Company, and for us. The trouble is, THEY get to decide. Guess who always wins. :(





.

Tony,
Give these guys a break, we both know they got hosed and the union told them to pound sand.

I RFO'd with one of these guys, and he told me he talked to his block rep and was told that he had a hard time convincing the older dudes about his grievance request. Said that he was just lucky to be awarded a widebody so soon, they had to be 727 S/Os for years... Basically, shut up and color..

You can defend these dudes as much as you want, but they did nothing to defend these guys when they knew they got hosed. But then again, the over 60 engineers certainly deserve all the help they can get...

I had dinner on a layover with the Block Rep that was taking most of those calls. During that dinner, he took a call from a disgruntled member, and he took nearly twenty minutes out of his dinner to make sure he answered each and every question the member had. I never once heard him tell the guy he was lucky to be where he was, I never once heard him say anything about having a hard time convincing "older dudes" to hear the grievance, and I never once heard anything resembling "pound sand." Such characterizations are both false and unfair.

I know these guys feel let down, and I can appreciate the frustration. But I can assure you that it's not the Union's fault. The Union did more than I thought they could, and they won more than I thought they could. For them to now be accused of these things is ludicrous.



.

Sorry Tony, just relaying a conversation. I should have called him a liar.

Anyone else have a story like this?

No, I don't think we have to go there.

I heard one conversation with one guy on one day. I can't vouch for everything that everyone said. Could he have run in to someone with a bad attitude and gotten an unpleasant result? I'm sure he could have. Nobody's perfect. But that's not even the point I think we're arguing here.


Beside manner or not, the issue under examination is whether the Union sacrificed the seniority rights of a group of junior pilots. Given the circumstances of the Contract, past practices of the Company, and the effort that was exerted to put egg on our collective faces and still walk away with a monetary award, albeit little more than a token, I can't see how one could argue that the Union just rolled over on junior folks just because they were junior. They went to bat, and then cut our losses.




.