Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-18-2007, 10:08 PM   #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
FlybyKnite's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: B777
Posts: 564
Default FDX Nov07 Disputed Pairs

ALPA's founders chose "Schedule with Safety" as our motto

The SIG/PSIT is Scheduling for OUR Safety !!

Support them in upholding the standard -- Don't fly disputed pairings!

Remind those who fly disputed pairs, either by force or by choice, to fill out a Critique Sheet on their experiences (or email/call the SIG) so they have some ammunition for the disputed pairs resolution process.

Links display a Trip Recap for each Disputed Pairing (Access to FedEx VIPS required to view) The one-line list of pairing numbers suitable for cut-n-paste into MagicWebFX (free & paid versions).


Disputed Pairings for November 2007

The following is the FedEx MECís definitive list of the pairings that are disputed for November 2007. These pairings should not be available in any bid pack lines and should not be assigned to any secondary lines without a specific request, by pairing number, from the crewmember to do so.

A-300 MEM:

47,99,139,158,262,480,564

#47: Disputed for mixing day with critical in same pairing.
#99: Disputed for four legs on a PM out and back. Transits three hub cities combined with the heaviest travel day of the year.
#139: Disputed for day-night-day with two 24-hour swaps embedded in this pairing.
#158: GDL, long trip combined with an unacceptably short layover.
#262: Flies in the critical for four days then swaps into day flying with a 22-hour layover. Poor circadian rhythm shift.
#480: Disputed for rolling sleep cycle.
#564: Disputed for unrealistic duty time of 11+27.

Trip 47 MEM 30 5Nov
Trip 99 MEM 30 20Nov
Trip 139 MEM 30 20Nov
Trip 158 MEM 30 5Nov
Trip 262 MEM 30 27Nov
Trip 480 MEM 30 20Nov
Trip 564 MEM 30 13Nov


MD11 ANC:

22,74,83,86,88,89

#22: Flying 3/4 of the way around the world to SFS before the only reset is much too late to be effective.
#74: Three body clock swaps in five days is excessive. No reset before the hard work.
#83,89:Multiple hub-turns and circadian shifts without a reset.
#86: After arriving in theater, two hub-turns without a reset. Then multiple hub-turns and body clock shifts after the only reset.
#88: A previous dispute for multiple long duties, body clock swaps and hub-turns before the reset.

Trip 22 ANC 11 2Dec
Trip 74 ANC 11 12Nov
Trip 83 ANC 11 26Nov
Trip 86 ANC 11 5Nov
Trip 88 ANC 11 5Nov
Trip 89 ANC 11 6Nov


MD11 LAX:

58,79

# 58: Disputed for the 5th duty period that contains 3 legs involving 4 high density airports. The sequence is ORD-JFK-ATL-DFW with a show time of 1450L and terminating at 0303L. Since the duty period begins in the day duty period the maximum duty time is 13 hours. It is currently scheduled for 12:13 of duty and we anticipated that the potential for exceeding the 13 hours of duty was high. Combining the long duty day, weather, and ATC saturation associated with these airports that this design is unnecessary.
# 79: A night out and back from ONT to MEM. With the the long night, and the commuting traffic associated for many of our crewmembers, this design was deemed onerous.

Trip 58 LAX 11 13Nov
Trip 79 LAX 11 6Nov


MD11 MEM:

10,110,118,714,2003,2010,2014,2091

Pairing 10:
This pairing is disputed for a number of reasons:
1. The rolling body clock after SFS, operating NIGHT-DAY-DAY-NIGHT into KIX to layover for KIX-MEM.
2. The layovers in KIX have been reduced consistently. A layover in KIX of 15:10 is in fact a rest period of no more than 12 hours if everything is perfect. This crew will arrive KIX tired. They will need to sleep immediately and most likely wake up 8-9 hours prior to the KIX-MEM leg. This is occurring at the end of a long pairing where cumulative sleep deficit and fatigue will be a factor.
3. We're concerned about service failures and would like to see layovers in KIX lengthened to provide the crew a chance for 2 sleep cycles if need be, to force a pilot to wake up in the middle of a sound rest period just to have the chance to sleep closer to alert time is not a good choice. Layovers should be minimum of 16 in the hotel; roughly an 18-19 hour layover should suffice.

Pairings 110, 714, 2010, 2014:
Flight 0005 has been historically scheduled CDG-STN-EWR with the use of a 3 man crew. On Saturdays, this flight is now scheduled to operate CDG-STN-MEM, which is a significant departure from past design and is being disputed based on the following reasons.
Flights from STN-MEM require a 3 man crew as a standalone flight, as it has been scheduled for a considerable time. The ALPA SIG believes that the use of an RFO and adding a leg may be legal but is not the intent of the regulation. There is no opportunity for rest on the first leg, only adding additional work and duty time. The amount of time elapsed from the alert call in CDG to the time the 3rd rest period occurs could be at least 9 hours. We request this flight return to the historical design of a single flight leg for STN-MEM.

Pairing 118:
It is imperative that crews look beyond the nice layovers in CDG and FRA. The PSIT disputes pairings for various reasons and this pairing is a good example of onerous design with an otherwise desirable layover format.
This pairing is disputed for the slingshot design. We feel it is necessary for the crew to get a full reset (32 hours minimum) at the slingshot point. Operating from CDG-DEL-PVG encompasses significant time change including a circadian swap after arriving PVG in the middle of the night. The layovers in CDG and FRA are excellent and much appreciated but that does not mitigate the onerous portion of the trip, 4 long flights (only one with an RFO) on a rolling body clock. We suggest keeping this type of pairing going in one direction or give adequate circadian adjustment during the difficult work periods.

Pairing 2003:
Slingshot design with no reset at the slingshot point, in fact after the reset in DEL, no reset after the slingshot all the way back westbound. We believe this design puts a crew in sleep deficit. We need to keep crew going in same direction with this type of layover design or, better yet, deadhead the RFO directly into ALA and avoid the slingshot by making ALA a longer layover since we are just positioning this pilot after reaching DEL.

Pairing 2091:
4 LONG duty periods and 2 of the longest legs in the system with 3 total ocean crossings before a reset is onerous and potentially fatiguing. The crew needs a reset in Asia, or no later than ANC. This RFO will not benefit from the reset; it occurs after all the hard work is done.

Trip 10 MEM 11 8Nov
Trip 110 MEM 11 29Nov
Trip 118 MEM 11 10Nov
Trip 714 MEM 11 6Nov
Trip 2003 MEM 11 7Nov
Trip 2010 MEM 11 29Nov
Trip 2014 MEM 11 8Nov
Trip 2014 MEM 11 15Nov
Trip 2014 MEM 11 22Nov
Trip 2091 MEM 11 20Nov

Web Critique Sheets

Please use the form on our website [FedEx ALPA], now available to all domiciles and dues-paying members: it gets to us without prior company review. Your input is the most valuable tool we have to solving scheduling issues. Another option is to directly E-mail the SIG or PSIT. The appropriate E-mail addresses are located after the PSIT memberís names in the following sections of the PSIT notes. This provides quick access to any SIG/PSIT member. Thanks to those who have written and provided invaluable information on pairings and lines.

.
FlybyKnite is offline  
Old 10-20-2007, 01:23 PM   #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Dadof6's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Trunk Monkey
Posts: 562
Default Well Done!

Great job, flyby--I plan to check my jet's DP list daily (once open time is released) for offenders. There is no excuse for those picking these up, and night/weekend cell phone minutes are free. Friends don't let friends fly DPs!
Dadof6 is offline  
Old 10-20-2007, 02:45 PM   #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
BonesF15's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD11
Posts: 313
Default

Nice work Knite, lets make this a monthly ritual.
I am going to make this a sticky so it is easier for everyone to reference.
This is how the union should send out the emails.
BonesF15 is offline  
Old 10-20-2007, 03:42 PM   #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Piloto Noche's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 192
Default Upcoming Resolution

For those of you not in LEC 7, we just received an LEC7 update. At an upcoming Council 7, 22 and 26 meeting, one of our outstanding union members intends to submit a resolution regarding disputed pairings. In case you haven't seen it, I'll copy it here:

Whereas, the FedEx pilots have been very clear over the years in stating
that quality of working life issues such as pairing and line
construction are among their top priorities and,

Whereas, the pilot volunteers on the scheduling, SIG and PSIT committees
expend enormous amounts of time and energy as well as a considerable
amount of our union resources working to ensure Company compliance with
both the letter and spirit of the contract in pairing and line
construction and,

Whereas, there is a procedure in our contract that allows our union to
"dispute" pairings which the SIG believes do not live up to contract
standards and,

Whereas, our union has repeatedly requested our pilots to comply with
our long standing union policy of not voluntarily flying any disputed
pairings but rather to leave them in open time to either be assigned to
reserves or flown by management pilots and,

Whereas, to date, nearly one year into our second union contract, our
union has apparently failed to communicate this policy adequately as
evidenced by the fact that a significant number of our pilots continue
to request disputed pairings for their VTO lines, to trip trade into
disputed pairings and to pick up disputed pairings for makeup and,

Whereas, it is desirous that we open a new channel of communication that
would allow pilots who have not been made aware of this policy to
understand the negative impact of continuing to voluntarily fly disputed
pairings on our hard working scheduling volunteers' efforts,

Therefore, be it resolved that beginning with the end of the next bid
month after the passage of this resolution is published in the MEC
minutes, that a list of all disputed pairings will be published along
with the names of all non reserve pilots who voluntarily fly any
disputed pairings in order to facilitate an education process whereby
they can be informed about this union policy and the importance of
adhering to same.

Respectfully submitted by .....


If you can't make the meeting, may I suggest you contact your reps to support this. I plan to.
Piloto Noche is offline  
Old 10-20-2007, 06:34 PM   #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FR8Hauler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,397
Default

[QUOTE=Piloto Noche;250407]For those of you not in LEC 7, we just received an LEC7 update. At an upcoming Council 7, 22 and 26 meeting, one of our outstanding union members intends to submit a resolution regarding disputed pairings. In case you haven't seen it, I'll copy it here:

Whereas, the FedEx pilots have been very clear over the years in stating
that quality of working life issues such as pairing and line
construction are among their top priorities and,

Whereas, the pilot volunteers on the scheduling, SIG and PSIT committees
expend enormous amounts of time and energy as well as a considerable
amount of our union resources working to ensure Company compliance with
both the letter and spirit of the contract in pairing and line
construction and,

Whereas, there is a procedure in our contract that allows our union to
"dispute" pairings which the SIG believes do not live up to contract
standards and,

Whereas, our union has repeatedly requested our pilots to comply with
our long standing union policy of not voluntarily flying any disputed
pairings but rather to leave them in open time to either be assigned to
reserves or flown by management pilots and,

Whereas, to date, nearly one year into our second union contract, our
union has apparently failed to communicate this policy adequately as
evidenced by the fact that a significant number of our pilots continue
to request disputed pairings for their VTO lines, to trip trade into
disputed pairings and to pick up disputed pairings for makeup and,

Whereas, it is desirous that we open a new channel of communication that
would allow pilots who have not been made aware of this policy to
understand the negative impact of continuing to voluntarily fly disputed
pairings on our hard working scheduling volunteers' efforts,

Therefore, be it resolved that beginning with the end of the next bid
month after the passage of this resolution is published in the MEC
minutes, that a list of all disputed pairings will be published along
with the names of all non reserve pilots who voluntarily fly any
disputed pairings in order to facilitate an education process whereby
they can be informed about this union policy and the importance of
adhering to same.

Respectfully submitted by .....


If you can't make the meeting, may I suggest you contact your reps to support this. I plan to.[/QUOT

Great idea. However, the lawyers won't let it happen.
FR8Hauler is offline  
Old 10-20-2007, 07:04 PM   #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
USMCFDX's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 1,359
Default

Will never happen. Waaay too much liability, and I smell lawsuit.
Nothing says the fools can't fly them, and they are legal pairings by the contract and FARS.
USMCFDX is offline  
Old 10-21-2007, 05:19 AM   #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
DLax85's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 2,872
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCFDX View Post
Will never happen. Waaay too much liability, and I smell lawsuit.
Nothing says the fools can't fly them, and they are legal pairings by the contract and FARS.
Just for the purpose of educational, lively debate, who would sue and what would be the legal basis for their lawsuit if the "majority" of the union members agreed to all the information regarding disputed pairings be "re-published" via a union e-mail or other form of communication?

Isn't this information already open for all to see, if they just take the time to look for it?

Once again --- just trying to see what increased "liability" the union would be taking if the majority of union members wanted and agreed to this positon

Thanks.
DLax85 is offline  
Old 10-21-2007, 05:54 AM   #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FDXLAG's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 7,981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DLax85 View Post
Just for the purpose of educational, lively debate, who would sue and what would be the legal basis for their lawsuit if the "majority" of the union members agreed to all the information regarding disputed pairings be "re-published" via a union e-mail or other form of communication?

Isn't this information already open for all to see, if they just take the time to look for it?

Once again --- just trying to see what increased "liability" the union would be taking if the majority of union members wanted and agreed to this positon

Thanks.
Good point. Sometimes you have to press to test.

IMO, to take away any issues, just publish all the names and how they were assigned. That way I can contact them afterwards and ask them "how was it".
FDXLAG is offline  
Old 10-21-2007, 06:35 AM   #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Boom Boom's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: FDX Airbus F/O
Posts: 152
Default

Notice how the Bus went from NONE to SEVEN?? What gives???
Boom Boom is offline  
Old 10-21-2007, 08:35 AM   #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Piloto Noche's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DLax85 View Post
Just for the purpose of educational, lively debate, who would sue and what would be the legal basis for their lawsuit if the "majority" of the union members agreed to all the information regarding disputed pairings be "re-published" via a union e-mail or other form of communication?

Isn't this information already open for all to see, if they just take the time to look for it?

Once again --- just trying to see what increased "liability" the union would be taking if the majority of union members wanted and agreed to this positon

Thanks.
Exactly.
It's not like this is privileged information; and it has nothing to do with FAA legalities. The FAA says it's ok to fly a 16 hour duty day! Is it safe? Is it good for my health? This is no time to be politically correct. My bid pack is starting to SUCK!
Piloto Noche is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What's the best way to get a job w/ FDX? Laxrox43 Cargo 77 06-05-2008 08:28 AM
FDX Stocks and FDX Pilots angry tanker Cargo 20 07-10-2007 03:31 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:11 PM.