Search
Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines

SIG Disputed Pairings

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-10-2007, 12:49 PM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Default

Originally Posted by onetime View Post
Why are they flown? One pilots disputed pairing is another pilots ability to be home for his anniversary, his kids championship game or whatever.
Yah, right. That's a good one.

Originally Posted by onetime View Post
Why are there so many disputed pairings anyway? Did we screw up the scheduling/work rules sections of the contract that bad? I think there should be no DPs at all. Either a trip is legal and compliant with the CBA or it's not. If its not, it should not be in the bidpack...
The scheduling section of the CBA has 28 individual sections. One is solely devoted to the SIG, and includes the disputed pairing process. This process IS part of our CBA and is there for OUR protection. Not the company's!

However, when greedy individuals can't see past their noses, and corrupt the process, with their selfishness...That section of the contract becomes almost meaningless. And in effect, invalidates all the work our SIG does, on our behalf.

I was told by our SIG chair, that not flying DPs is essential to the process. If we want to fight these onerous trips.
Busboy is offline  
Old 10-10-2007, 12:50 PM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Default

Hey FDXer!

Good thinking...And, quick typing.
Busboy is offline  
Old 10-10-2007, 12:51 PM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 1,395
Default

Busboy,

I reading you post thinking "yeah--what he said!"
FDXer is offline  
Old 10-10-2007, 01:14 PM
  #24  
...Whatever It Is!
 
MD11Fr8Dog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
Default

Originally Posted by FDXer View Post
Busboy,

I reading you post thinking "yeah--what he said!"
And I read both said "yea, what they said!" You guys were nicer than I wanted to be!
MD11Fr8Dog is offline  
Old 10-10-2007, 01:16 PM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
onetime's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 777 F/O
Posts: 340
Default

Originally Posted by FDXer View Post
May I remind you that the CBA also contains the disputed pairing "process". Yes we did vote these work rules in but part of the CBA is the SIG and PSIT. To say we must live with these pairings because they comply with the CBA and FARs is only part of the story. The "dispute process" also complies with the CBA that "we" voted in. The process doesn't work well when we have independent contractors trying to enhance their bottom line.
True, but how is that working out for the collective us? Again, if unsafe, onerous pairings are never built then they will never be flown, not even by reserve pilots. As a side note, why were reserves designated the unsafe, unrealistic and onerous pairing test pilots?

I have no idea how many pairings are built across the airframes each month excluding peak, but roughly 20 to 25ish at most are disputed each month. Could there be another way to ensure that small percentage is never displayed to the crewforce?

I'm not making excuses for those who voluntarily fly DP's nor am I disagreeing with you. I'm simply suggesting it may be time to try a different approach now or next CBA, before the optimizer really goes out of control.
onetime is offline  
Old 10-10-2007, 01:21 PM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
onetime's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 777 F/O
Posts: 340
Default

Busboy, don't stop at DPs when you mention greed amonst the crewforce. Good words on the DP process, but could there be a better way is all I'm saying.
onetime is offline  
Old 10-10-2007, 02:10 PM
  #27  
...Whatever It Is!
 
MD11Fr8Dog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
Default

Originally Posted by onetime View Post
Busboy, don't stop at DPs when you mention greed amonst the crewforce. Good words on the DP process, but could there be a better way is all I'm saying.
Its the only process and until we have a better way, we better support the SIG!
MD11Fr8Dog is offline  
Old 10-10-2007, 02:16 PM
  #28  
Gets Weekends Off
 
onetime's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 777 F/O
Posts: 340
Default

Originally Posted by MD11Fr8Dog View Post
Its the only process and until we have a better way, we better support the SIG!
Fair enough, but it does need to be readdressed when the time comes.
onetime is offline  
Old 10-10-2007, 02:20 PM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Default

Originally Posted by onetime View Post
Fair enough, but it does need to be readdressed when the time comes.
Absolutely.
Busboy is offline  
Old 10-10-2007, 04:47 PM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: FedEx
Posts: 666
Default

Originally Posted by Lipout1 View Post
Just check out the calendar of this Capt on this disputed pairing. The guy works every week.

https://pilot.fedex.com/vips-bin/vip...?MEM?27?9OCT07
No doubt maxing out that high 5 for a retirement the APAAD whacks don't want him to have, and the rest of us paid for in the current contract.

Nice.

FJ
Falconjet is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CaptainGator
Cargo
77
10-13-2007 07:50 AM
Dakota
Cargo
12
10-05-2007 04:55 PM
BigWatchPilot
Cargo
1
08-12-2007 05:52 AM
groggy
Cargo
13
06-25-2007 07:41 AM
Lennon
JetBlue
7
07-29-2005 04:17 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices