STV vs. CBA
 

Does everyone know that under our current CBA that there is a provision already for junior assignment to a temporary vacancy? 24.C.4

4. Temporary Vacancy Awards
a. A temporary vacancy(ies) shall be awarded in order of seniority to pilots
who:
i. are currently qualified in and currently hold a permanent position in the
crew status in which the temporary vacancy exists at a base(s)
specified by the Company as provided in Section 24.B.2.b.; and
ii. have requested that temporary vacancy on their standing bid.
b. If a temporary vacancy(ies) remains following the award process the most
junior pilot(s) described in Section 24.C.4.a.i., (above), may be assigned
that vacancy(ies) in order of reverse system seniority. A pilot may not be
assigned to a temporary vacancy in accordance with this paragraph for
longer than 1 bid period nor more than once in any period of 14
consecutive bid periods until all more senior pilots in his crew position have
been inversely assigned to those temporary vacancies.
c. A temporary vacancy may not be awarded or assigned to a pilot who is
scheduled or anticipated to be unavailable, (e.g., on vacation, training, sick
leave, leave of absence), during the bid period in which the temporary
vacancy exists.
d. A temporary vacancy shall be awarded or assigned prior to publication of
the bid period packages for the bid period in which the temporary vacancy
exists.
e. An award/assignment of a temporary vacancy shall not result in a
permanent crew position change. Upon completion of a temporary award
or assignment, a pilot shall return to his permanent crew position.

The STV portion also addresses 24.B.2

Temporary Vacancy Posting

a. A temporary vacancy shall begin and end concurrent with a bid period.
Temporary vacancies may not be utilized in a crew position for more than 4
bid periods during any calendar year.
b. A temporary vacancy posting shall specify the crew position(s) from which
bids will be accepted and, if applicable, the number of bids which will be
awarded at each domicile from which bids are accepted.
c. Temporary vacancies in a crew position shall be posted and awarded
separately for each bid period.
d. A temporary vacancy may be utilized only at an existing non-FDA domicile.


For discussion purposes, let's compare existing language/benefits to proposed language/benefits of the LOA.

1. Duration of Temporary Vacancy
Current - 4 bid periods per year without limitation (1 bid period nor more than once in any period of 14 consecutive bid periods until all more senior pilots in his crew position have been inversely assigned to those temporary vacancies)
LOA - 1 bid period every 6 months for 2 yrs


2. Utilization of Temporary Vacancy
Current - an existing non-FDA domicile (MEM, LAX, ANC)
LOA - Proposed FDAs

3. Entitlements while assigned a TV
Current - Per diem for off days, company paid lodging
LOA - Per diem for off days, round trip tickets for dependents, company paid lodging


It appears the company can already send people to MEM, LAX, ANC for TV without paying for lodging or giving per diem on days off.

One does have the ability though to commute in and out of these domiclies though.

So the compromise appears to be that the company can use STV but is required to pay for lodging, per diem, and airfare for dependents.

Some food for thought...

From DiamondZ,

4. Temporary Vacancy Awards
a. A temporary vacancy(ies) shall be awarded in order of seniority to pilots
who:
i. are currently qualified in and currently hold a permanent position in the
crew status in which the temporary vacancy exists at a base(s)
specified by the Company as provided in Section 24.B.2.b.; and
ii. have requested that temporary vacancy on their standing bid.

d. A temporary vacancy may be utilized only at an existing non-FDA domicile.

Two very important differences from the LOA STV provision. If you're going to equate the two, make sure you understand those differences.

I guess I dont understand your point.

I know current TV can only be used at non-FDA domiciles. I thought that was clearly stated.

As I understand it, under the current CBA, you must have put the base that the company intends to send you temporarily on your standing bid (in other word, you hope to go there on the next bid anyway), and it cannot be overseas.
Under the LOA, it can be an FDA overseas, and you don't have to have it on your standing bid.

If you're qualified in a seat that a temporary vacancy (TV) is needed, the company can, under the currrent CBA, send you to non-FDA domicile (MEM, LAX, ANC) for 1 bid period every 14 months while paying you lodging, per diem, but no airfare for dependents.

The LOA would allow the company to send a person to an FDA 1 bid period every 6 months but is required to pay for lodging, per diem and airfare for dependents.

The standing bid is irrelevant unless, of course, you bid either FDA.

The company cannot 'force' award anyone into a FDA only a TV.

Which is it?
"The LOA would allow the company to send a person to an FDA 1 bid period every 6 months...", or "The company cannot 'force' award anyone into a FDA..."
In any event, I think we both agree that under the current CBA, the company cannot force anyone to go overseas for 30 days, while only getting paid for the equivalent of 15 days of pay. The LOA will allow them to do that. I personally don't care if airfare for dependents is included or not - my wife works and couldn't get away anyway.
As to per diem and lodging, if I was sent on a TV to ANC, MEM, or LAX, I could commute in for trips, and at least get home for a good portion of the month. I probably wouldn't need the per diem or hotel. And again, I would have indicated to the company that I eventually wanted to be based there by putting that location on my standing bid.
Any way you cut it, the STV will be a bad deal for anyone unlucky enough to be assigned one. It gives the company an unprecedented amount of power. No other major airline in the United States has this ability, and it will be a huge windfall for Fedex if the LOA passes.
Just one of the many shortcomings of this thing.

When it says it cannot force anyone into the FDA, that is a bid for your domicile. They can't force you into it. Under our current CBA, they also cannot temporarily put you there either, the worst they can do is give you siba.

I agree the STV is a bad thing, and it is a chance that some will have to dodge if this LOA gets approved(myself especially), but are new jobs and securing our flying worth avoiding an STV? I don't know the right answer, but like DZ said, it is food for thought.

HJ

You go through the seniority list pretty quickly with this one.

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that you are confusing a standing bid vs monthly bid.

The company cannot force you into a FDA as your standing bid. ie 75 FO CDG, A300 CAP HKG.

The LOA would allow you to be inversed for a bid period, 4 or 5 weeks, every six months.

Im not saying STV is a great deal but to think this is something completely new and not in the contract is inaccurate.

Agreed.

Plus current CBA language states 1 bid period every 14 months for a TV although STV has 1 every 6 months...

But this LOA changes the wording to allow it to effect everyone on the seniority list. Under the current contract if it isn't in my standing bid they can't force me at all

It has nothing to do with your standing bid. It has to do with what seat you are in. If you are qualified in the seat, that's when you can get inversed. If you bid it, that is a different animal.

Where are you guys reading this?

Are you saying that under the CBA, you cant be sent to a FDA?

If so, yes I agree 100% but you can be sent to ANC or LAX for a bid period.

The TV concept is something currently in the contract.

The CBA says,
4. Temporary Vacancy Awards
a. A temporary vacancy(ies) shall be awarded in order of seniority to pilots
who:
i. are currently qualified in and currently hold a permanent position in the
crew status in which the temporary vacancy exists at a base(s)
specified by the Company as provided in Section 24.B.2.b.; and
ii. have requested that temporary vacancy on their standing bid.
b. If a temporary vacancy(ies) remains following the award process the most
junior pilot(s) described in Section 24.C.4.a.i., (above), may be assigned
that vacancy(ies) in order of reverse system seniority. A pilot may not be
assigned to a temporary vacancy in accordance with this paragraph for
longer than 1 bid period nor more than once in any period of 14
consecutive bid periods until all more senior pilots in his crew position have
been inversely assigned to those temporary vacancies.

So, the first guys who would be sent to a TV would be guys who have listed the domicile on their STANDING BID. If they can't fill all of the seats they need, then they will start up the seniority list in inverse order.

Your right in that they could theoretically send people unwillingly from MEM to LAX temporarily. Has that ever happened? Not to my knowledge. And if it did, people could still commute. With the LOA on HKG and CDG, commuting will not be an option - you're stuck there. And unlike the TVA section of the contract, the STV section of the LOA will very likely be required to be used by the company.

Is this the biggest problem with this thing? Not in my opinion. But it does have the potential to affect the largest number of people should this thing pass.

Once in every 14 months our until everyone on the senority list is hit.

Or

Once in every six months and then we start at the bottom of the list again.

I wonder why the senior dudes on the NC like this language.

I asked TonyC if he had any knowledge of that section of the CBA being utilized and he said he did not. I agree that it hasnt happened and probably will be used as a STV.

My understanding is that after the standing bid has closed, there would be a monthly bid to fill the open vacancies. If vacancies still existed then you'd be inversed.

I also agree that you could still commute to ANC/LAX. I see the compromise as, 'we send you over there (CDG,HKG) for the bid period we'll pay for your wife and kids tickets'. Not necessarily the end of the world....

Plase read all the CBA. Section 5.G says you will get perdiem and a hotel room for your complete Temporary Vacancy.

That is also the section that says you will Deadhead as opposed to the LOAs "positioned".

I stand corrected...thank you

From the CBA,

1. DEADHEAD (DH)
   Travel scheduled by the Company to position a pilot.

This does not appear to be a significant difference.

The question is, if there is an off-duty period before your first duty, is this considered a deadhead to revenue operations?

CBA 8.A.1 Deadheading To Revenue Operations
A pilot scheduled to deadhead to or from revenue operations shall receive pay and credit as provided in Section 4.F. (Trip Guarantee).

This problem applies equally to the CBA and the LOA. The LOA does not make this provision worse, but it does not fix it either.

I wouldnt' sweat all this STV BS.

If you vote this in, we will get to find out all the details in due time. I'm sure the rules will be fair and square. Quit worrying about little stuff like does your deadhead over count against your work time....

Geez...do you wanna let the Chinese fly the freight? You gonna rob your buddy of his $2700? It will be the end of FedEx and our entire crew force if you don't give the company the flexibility it needs to make this work.

From the LOA:
Airline Tickets. The pilot shall be entitled to one set of round-trip business class tickets to position him and his dependents from his permanent residence to the FDA at the beginning of his assignment and from the FDA to his next base at the conclusion of his assignment.

Does this mean the pilots moving to an FDA get Deadhead pay? I'll bet it is news to the company and ALPA. Do his dependents get Deadhead pay, since they are being positioned? The ALPA lawyers don't know if we will be paid DH pay on STVs. JL knows but we are either afraid to ask or we didn't like the answer.

You aren't Deadheading to or from revenue operations you are being positioned for an FDA. The language changed for a reason, what was the reason?

I'll say it again, I think we will be paid DH hours but I would like to see it in writing before 10 Aug.

Who hijacked Albie's login?:D This sounds like a change in heart from your earlier posts.

<< Geez...do you wanna let the Chinese fly the freight? You gonna rob your buddy of his $2700? >>

Again -- FedEx will NEVER be able to hire Chinese pilots to fly freight around Asia. When Shanghai Airlines has to contract with Mesa for American pilots to fly their cross-border routes because they don't have pilots who speak English, believe me, FedEx can't find them, either. Chinese pilots all come from the military, where they are NOT taught to speak English. Reason? If they don't speak English, they can't defect. If they try to cross a border and can't communicate their intent, they'll be shot down, and they know it. So Chinese pilots are NOT a threat to our jobs.

There is plenty of flexibility to make this work -- give us a package that lets us live a decent life and keep our Federal tax break for living on the other side of the world from our families and homes, and it'll work just fine. That's a small price for a Fortune 500 blue-chip company to pay for its ambitious program of global expansion. If you want to make an omelet, you gotta break a few eggs!!! It's a cost of doing business!

You may be being sarcastic too, but just in case...that previous post was extremely tongue in cheek.

Just checking.

Must say, as I've talked with a few old-heads, I've had second thoughts.

The concern folks have over Us not being used is not unrealistic, which is what most folks are scared of.

Problem is, if we say yes, we don't negotiate above and beyond in the next contract, we negotiate to regain what we gave up in the LOA.

OK ... how about Cathay pilots that retire at 55 years old then? Or Gemini or Atlas or Polar or ????? They speak english and aren't afraid of being shot down? Or for that matter, how about the Mesa bubbas you mention that already live in China?

Don't get me wrong, I think the LOA is hugely inadequate and will vote no but I'm a slight bit concerned about what the company's alternatives are. I hope calm heads will prevail and the company will come back with a better offer but numerous union and managements types say they won't. We've seen them make offers in the past and when we said no they said OK (think postal freight LOA here). They had another plan all along ...


Mark

I'm sorry, but am I missing something here? What exactly did we lose with the postal freight? We didn't agree to fly extra and the company did the deal with USPS anyway. We had to hire extra pilots for the extra flying. There was a significant movement in seat progression. Finally, we fly the same number of days per month as we did in 1991, 1995, 2000, and 2005. If you don't believe me, go rummage through some of the old bid packs.