FDX July Disputed Pairings
07-03-2007, 10:30 AM
#81
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Just so you remember where I stand... "The pairing is unsafe, so only reserves should fly it" is ridiculous. If the pairing will be flown by a union member... any union member should have the choice. The real enemy of this crew force is the optimizer and most of the worst goes undisputed because its not disputable...shorter layovers all over the world (14hrs in Shanghai), more hubturns internationally and especially SDT (same duty time) deadheads which the SIG thinks is fine if we get to ride in business...if its available!!!
Or are you leading by example?...Which is ignoring your union brothers/sisters and being a heretic.
07-03-2007, 11:33 AM
#82
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
You just don't get it do you? If reserves are the only ones flying the disputed pairing the dispute holds merit and the trip will get modified. If you just go out and and add it to your "it's all about me" schedule then the trip becomes UNDISPUTABLE. No one is saying it is unsafe so only a reserve should fly it. What they are saying is that by letting the trip go to a reserve pilot is the only way things will change! How hard is that to understand?
No go back in your hole we didn't miss you.
07-03-2007, 12:10 PM
#83
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 83
You just don't get it do you? If reserves are the only ones flying the disputed pairing the dispute holds merit and the trip will get modified. If you just go out and and add it to your "it's all about me" schedule then the trip becomes UNDISPUTABLE. No one is saying it is unsafe so only a reserve should fly it. What they are saying is that by letting the trip go to a reserve pilot is the only way things will change! How hard is that to understand?
No go back in your hole we didn't miss you.
No go back in your hole we didn't miss you.
07-03-2007, 02:40 PM
#84
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
You shouldn't miss me, it allows you to spout misleading untrue statements. First, you don't even understand what makes a pairing undisputable which is another reason I tired of this form of communication. Its discouraging to continually read statements that are plain wrong but go unchallenged because the majority support this "policy" so what's a little inaccuracy among friends. Remember...I can fly disputed pairings every month and still be a "member in good standing" because I haven't violated the contract. Being part of your popularity contest isn't required.
First: Enlighten us oh wise one
Second: No one has ever questioned ones "good standing" by flying disputed pairings.
Third: It is not a popularity contest - it is doing what is asked of us by the SIG.
Fourth: You probably flew Draft and Volunteer during the last set of negotiations because it was not in violation of the contract.
Fifth: People with your attitude are the reason we have such a dismal LOA presented to us for a vote.
Sixth: I could go on but it will do no good with an attitude like yours!
07-03-2007, 09:36 PM
#85
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
07-03-2007, 10:20 PM
#86
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: MD11 F/O
Posts: 129
Open Mind is the NEW HIRE who is smarter than every one else here and doesn't take the time to consider that the problem might be with her. She should make a wonderfully "Open Minded" captain someday. I am sure that she will be open to the inputs and suggestions of her copilots in the future. Pay no attention to the fact then when it was her turn to shut up and color she decided it was time to teach the class.
I second the referendum that everyone on the seniority list should have their sponsors name next to theirs. I am sure her sponsor is very proud. With "members in good standing" like Open Mind who needs non-members. Can you blame the NC for rolling over with "Open Mind" kind of support.
Last edited by Jaxman187; 07-03-2007 at 11:06 PM.
07-04-2007, 04:13 AM
#88
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 732
Thanks for asking, my health is fine and my opinions unchanged. With every decision of the MEC being viewed critically these days, lanyards being discarded, and hopefully a resounding "no" vote on this ridiculous LOA, I didn't think my comments were necessary. Since you obviously miss my voice, I'll try to post more often. Just so you remember where I stand... "The pairing is unsafe, so only reserves should fly it" is ridiculous. If the pairing will be flown by a union member... any union member should have the choice. The real enemy of this crew force is the optimizer and most of the worst goes undisputed because its not disputable...shorter layovers all over the world (14hrs in Shanghai), more hubturns internationally and especially SDT (same duty time) deadheads which the SIG thinks is fine if we get to ride in business...if its available!!!
Your personal need to voluntarily fly DP's undermines the process, whether it is because of your bottom feeder seniority or disdain for the process. It is directly used against the SIG when they try to bring a DP issue through the resolution process. If we have more pilots like you we will soon have NO DP's. What leverage does the SIG have to argue stuff like Same Duty follow on Deadheads if we dispute them and 100% are flown voluntarily. The SCP or VP of Ops says "It can't be that bad if 98% of the flights were covered voluntarily" case closed.
I really hope you are an F/O in ANC because the Captains up there understand the system and realize it is ALL we have to fight the continued optimization of our pairings. I bet they are treating volunteer DP flyers appropriately.
07-04-2007, 09:04 AM
#89
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Posts: 398
There is a huge difference from a generic union member choosing to fly a disputed pairing to a reserve union member being forced to fly one. The difference is, since the reserve guy didn't CHOOSE it, it will continue to be disputed by the SIG, and hopefully can be fixed in the future.
I recently flew a paring that USED to be disputed, but was no longer able to be disputed because so many people like Open Mind CHOSE to fly it. When I first saw it I was amazed it was not disputed, and I called a SIG guy to make sure I didn't make a mistake (though it was on my hard line, so it would have been the company's mistake.) He said they were no longer able to dispute it.... and since it covered a holiday weekend, I was unable to drop it.
And let me tell you... I did an Ops Report when I came home. It was exhausting and unsafe. And unrealistic!
Open Mind, please understand the difference between your CHOICES and others being FORCED to fly a DP. The bar can only be lowered here. And where do you think they come up with these DP's anyway? That evil optimizer you mentioned. So FIGHT it by NOT FLYING DP's.
I recently flew a paring that USED to be disputed, but was no longer able to be disputed because so many people like Open Mind CHOSE to fly it. When I first saw it I was amazed it was not disputed, and I called a SIG guy to make sure I didn't make a mistake (though it was on my hard line, so it would have been the company's mistake.) He said they were no longer able to dispute it.... and since it covered a holiday weekend, I was unable to drop it.
And let me tell you... I did an Ops Report when I came home. It was exhausting and unsafe. And unrealistic!
Open Mind, please understand the difference between your CHOICES and others being FORCED to fly a DP. The bar can only be lowered here. And where do you think they come up with these DP's anyway? That evil optimizer you mentioned. So FIGHT it by NOT FLYING DP's.
07-05-2007, 01:59 AM
#90
Ok, No more sleeping Dog
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD-11, F/O
Posts: 889
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
