June 15th Bid???
06-12-2007, 07:21 PM
#22
Trust but Verify!!
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD11 CRA
Posts: 684
Well, since we aren't smart enough to "do the right thing" or know what is good for us as a group I don't expect any say in any of these issues. In fact, the cynical side of me wonders if DW and his MEC would give the company whatever they wanted as long as they got all pilots over 60 back to the left seat with or without a bid and with retro pay for the years they lost as a S/O to boot! Of course, the retro pay should come out of those of us still under age 60 paychecks in the form of a VEBA like deduction because it's the "right thing to do". For the record, I'm being sarcastic but I hope I just didn't give them any ideas about how to help this group out even more!! Meanwhile, we're working more days, with longer DP's, for about the same pay, but my MEC is focusing on Age 60 damage control and taking care of those retro issues for 200 or so. Good to see they have their priorities for us straight!!
06-12-2007, 08:52 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 1559
Posts: 1,533
That's probably a good idea. Vote down the LOA and delay the MEGA bid until after the age 60 rule passes. That way the over 60 guys will be assured of bidding back up front on the subsequent posting. I'm sure the over 60 guys appreciate your efforts.
06-12-2007, 09:04 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: 767 Cap
Posts: 1,306
Originally Posted by MX727
That's probably a good idea. Vote down the LOA and delay the MEGA bid until after the age 60 rule passes. That way the over 60 guys will be assured of bidding back up front on the subsequent posting. I'm sure the over 60 guys appreciate your efforts.
06-12-2007, 09:06 PM
#25
Bourgeoisie
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 787 SO
Posts: 616
Originally Posted by MX727
That's probably a good idea. Vote down the LOA and delay the MEGA bid until after the age 60 rule passes. That way the over 60 guys will be assured of bidding back up front on the subsequent posting. I'm sure the over 60 guys appreciate your efforts.
06-13-2007, 02:24 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: DC10 Captain
Posts: 284
Originally Posted by MX727
That's probably a good idea. Vote down the LOA and delay the MEGA bid until after the age 60 rule passes. That way the over 60 guys will be assured of bidding back up front on the subsequent posting. I'm sure the over 60 guys appreciate your efforts.
Do you think FedEx ALPA would object if the flow from the backseat started occurring with no vacancy posting?
06-13-2007, 03:14 AM
#27
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by Toccata
Do you think FedEx ALPA would object if the flow from the backseat started occurring with no vacancy posting?
There is no contractual provision, and no precedent.
Seniority rights means participating in a Vacancy Posting.
Taking a seat without a bid amounts to Super Seniority, and it would not be acceptable.
.
06-13-2007, 04:16 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Bench Warmer
Posts: 241
If the LOA is voted down it is not because we DIDn'T read it. It is because we know what the company does for all the non-pilots and Chief Pilots in Foreign Domiciles. If the LOA is on par I am sure it will pass...
But when you hear that BC told management that the pilots can pay the 65K deposit and $15k a year for school...because that is what he pays to send his kids, its a joke. The "no one will get one cent more than me" attitude is lame...you want a domicile in HK then it better be a kicka$$ LOA. Since they don't have anyone on the negotiating committee from Subic...to get some "real" input...it is obvious, the guys doing the talking will not be BIDDING to any of these places.
BWP...in
But when you hear that BC told management that the pilots can pay the 65K deposit and $15k a year for school...because that is what he pays to send his kids, its a joke. The "no one will get one cent more than me" attitude is lame...you want a domicile in HK then it better be a kicka$$ LOA. Since they don't have anyone on the negotiating committee from Subic...to get some "real" input...it is obvious, the guys doing the talking will not be BIDDING to any of these places.
BWP...in
06-13-2007, 06:13 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: DC10 Captain
Posts: 284
Oh boy. Time for me to get edjumicated, or to "get you-shelves sum edge-ah-ka-shun." Hate having to respond to TonyC (my comments bolded and in blue). Here goes...
Granted, the issue in question is the movement up, or forward, of crewmembers if/when the age restriction changes (again, assuming the wording allows that). Very little specifically exists in our CBA on that situation. But, when looking at it from the standpoint of a crew position award, without a vacancy posting, considerable precedence does exist. With no CBA language specifically prohibiting it, could it take place?
I am not betting against it at this point. However, I'm guessing an education is on its way shortly.
As an aside, I believe UPS addressed these issues with much more clarity in their latest contract. Any "Brown" care to comment on that?
Originally Posted by TonyC
Absolutely, without a doubt.
There is no contractual provision, and no precedent.
If the precedent in question is awarding a crew position and training without a vacancy, obviously it is currently going on. For reaching age 60, is it contractual? Maybe, based on 24.E.6. Although, I still believe that sentence could not be defended in court, due to its wording.
Training/Stds gentlemen have historically been allowed to move to any seat that someone junior to them exists, regardless of either a vacancy posting, or if they could have held it in the most recent bid.
However, if the precedent you are referring to is movement from the S/O seat to a F/O or Captain seat after a legal restriction is removed, such as a medical condition, you MAY be right. But, I think with enough research, examples could be found to indicate otherwise.
Contractual Provisions:
24.E.3. could be interesting. Would the company require a current vacancy position to train a F/O they have frozen and are paying Captain passover pay? It only states that it is the Company's choice to remove the freeze. What happens then? Wait for a vacancy bid, and continue to pay passover? I do not believe it is really addressed.
3.B.2.B. will also be interesting. The regulated age changes. The pilot who WAS restricted by age 60 is no longer restricted. The sentence in effect becomes invalid, because the pilot now has a NEW date in which he will reach the regulated age. He is holding a seat, and pay rate, in which the reason to be there is no longer in force. In fact, if he was awarded it without a vacancy posting, argument could be made that he should immediately be trained in what he can hold, since he contractually should not be in the S/O seat now.
Seniority rights means participating in a Vacancy Posting.
Seniority rights are being "upheld" through the current use of 24.E.6, without a Vacancy Posting. As has happened in the past, protection of seniority rights though the current procedure will result in Jr. crewmembers being excessed into another position. Due to the current situation, they may all be able to hold the right seat of something, but that is not guaranteed contractually. Different circumstances, they could be all moving into the back of the 27. And, those who were awarded a S/O seat (due to age 60) in an actual bid with a Vacancy Posting will also be excessed into the back of the 27, or forced to retire.
Taking a seat without a bid amounts to Super Seniority, and it would not be acceptable.
Seats are currently being taken (awarded) without a bid. And, the result is the potential of forcing some who were awarded seats in a previous bid into either an excess downbid or into retirement.
.
There is no contractual provision, and no precedent.
If the precedent in question is awarding a crew position and training without a vacancy, obviously it is currently going on. For reaching age 60, is it contractual? Maybe, based on 24.E.6. Although, I still believe that sentence could not be defended in court, due to its wording.
Training/Stds gentlemen have historically been allowed to move to any seat that someone junior to them exists, regardless of either a vacancy posting, or if they could have held it in the most recent bid.
However, if the precedent you are referring to is movement from the S/O seat to a F/O or Captain seat after a legal restriction is removed, such as a medical condition, you MAY be right. But, I think with enough research, examples could be found to indicate otherwise.
Contractual Provisions:
24.E.3. could be interesting. Would the company require a current vacancy position to train a F/O they have frozen and are paying Captain passover pay? It only states that it is the Company's choice to remove the freeze. What happens then? Wait for a vacancy bid, and continue to pay passover? I do not believe it is really addressed.
3.B.2.B. will also be interesting. The regulated age changes. The pilot who WAS restricted by age 60 is no longer restricted. The sentence in effect becomes invalid, because the pilot now has a NEW date in which he will reach the regulated age. He is holding a seat, and pay rate, in which the reason to be there is no longer in force. In fact, if he was awarded it without a vacancy posting, argument could be made that he should immediately be trained in what he can hold, since he contractually should not be in the S/O seat now.
Seniority rights means participating in a Vacancy Posting.
Seniority rights are being "upheld" through the current use of 24.E.6, without a Vacancy Posting. As has happened in the past, protection of seniority rights though the current procedure will result in Jr. crewmembers being excessed into another position. Due to the current situation, they may all be able to hold the right seat of something, but that is not guaranteed contractually. Different circumstances, they could be all moving into the back of the 27. And, those who were awarded a S/O seat (due to age 60) in an actual bid with a Vacancy Posting will also be excessed into the back of the 27, or forced to retire.
Taking a seat without a bid amounts to Super Seniority, and it would not be acceptable.
Seats are currently being taken (awarded) without a bid. And, the result is the potential of forcing some who were awarded seats in a previous bid into either an excess downbid or into retirement.
.
I am not betting against it at this point. However, I'm guessing an education is on its way shortly.
As an aside, I believe UPS addressed these issues with much more clarity in their latest contract. Any "Brown" care to comment on that?
06-13-2007, 06:19 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: headbanging
Posts: 954
Originally Posted by TonyC
Absolutely, without a doubt.
There is no contractual provision, and no precedent.
Seniority rights means participating in a Vacancy Posting.
Taking a seat without a bid amounts to Super Seniority, and it would not be acceptable.
.
There is no contractual provision, and no precedent.
Seniority rights means participating in a Vacancy Posting.
Taking a seat without a bid amounts to Super Seniority, and it would not be acceptable.
.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
