First of all, these guys have the right to stay on the seniority list, regardless of their motives. If you have a problem with that, why not discuss it with the company, as it's been that way since we had the Flight Crewmembers Handbook, well before we unionized.

Secondly, they had no choice but to bid the back seat, so if they can get out of doing that job, while doing another job, good on them (imho).

Thirdly, if your logic were true, than anyone bidding a flex job, should resign their seniority number and become a professional instructor. Perhaps the same could be said for anyone wanting a management position of any type.

These are the facts as told to me a few minutes ago by SM, the MD-11 chief pilot: 1) in the MD-11 training program there are two types of guys: flex guys, who do simulators, and super-flex guys who provide training in the jet as well as in the sim; 2) in order for a guy to hold a flex job, he has to be senior enough to hold the MD-11; 3) Flex jobs, pay at minimum, wide-body F/O pay; 4) there is ONE GUY, who was a well known and well liked line check airman (this according to SM), based in Anchorage, who has been offered and has accepted a flex job. He lives in Anchorage, where he provides sim support and training. He is over 60, and once he reached 60 he trained for the back seat of the DC-10, where, according to his calendar he flew his last DC-10 trip toward the end of last January. He is doing the flex thing AT S/O PAY. 5) there are no other over 60 guys in the MD-11 flex program, nor do they plan (as of right now) offering any this kind of work.

Please see my last post. You'd be right if the guy wanting that job were already a MD-11 captain, but you'd be wrong if he were a S/O or F/O. And as far as I can find out, it's not happening, with the one notable exception.

So a quick read of the contract shows some interesting deviations in your one example. Did the union sign off? What other sections do we blow off?

As I have said twice sounds like a good idea. Let's make sure everyone that wants one gets a shot.

"Originally Posted by FreightDawgyDog
" Also, they are making 727 S/O money when the active pilot who wanted the job would be making WB Capt money. So, good for the over 60 pilot, great for the company, screw job for the WB Capt that wants the job. All this is predicated on whether or not this is happening of course...

Please see my last post. You'd be right if the guy wanting that job were already a MD-11 captain, but you'd be wrong if he were a S/O or F/O. And as far as I can find out, it's not happening, with the one notable exception."

I saw your last post, written after mine was. Thank you for pointing it out. I am right that the company is paying S/O rates for a job that could be held by a WB Capt. Last I checked there were no S/O's based in ANC. The fact that a MEM S/O is being paid to be an ANC MD-11 flex raises questions all on it's own. Do I give a crap? Nope. If there are no ANC based MD-11 Capt's or F/O's that want that job then I have no problem with the concept, but I have no idea if that is the case. Do you? Are there MEM MD-11 Capt's or F/O's that would like to flex in ANC? Shouldn't they get the nod over a DC-10 S/O? Does all this adhere to our contract? Since our union seems to have given carte blanche to the company in most gray areas of our CBA I'm not sure it really matters. Does it set precedent that we may not like later on? Let's see, a DC-10 S/O, not based in ANC, is being paid S/O pay to be a flex there. Is the company providing him all they would provide another MEM MD-11 based crew member for being TDY to ANC including airfare, hotel accommodations and per diem? If not, then why? Could we see openings for flex's be filled this way in the future as long as the Age 65 wait goes on? We have a precedent now according to you. I am sure every over 60 S/O that hears about this deal will be looking for one like it in a sim near him. It sure beats pouring coffee and hub turns! With Age 65 looking further and further away from Memorial Day I could see this being a problem in he future...

I am guilty of playing devil's advocate.... so please relax, JJ, and continue to heal. It was not meant to stir the pot.

And you are right, it is allowed.

I do not like holding a seat on one airplane, and teaching on another. So of course I would not support all flex guys resigning seniority. You took it too far there. Most of us under 60 can't hold a seat on one plane, and teach on another.

I want to avoid super secret programs to help your buddies. Just put it all out there in the open.

I agree with everything you've said in your last post. Personally I also don't agree with someone flying one jet, but teaching on another. Of course, I've always tried to follow the Stupid Steve method of aviation, that of using the KISS method. I understand your comment about not being able to hold a widebody seat, and that was one of the reasons I commented to begin with. I also think that the GOBN (good ole boy network) stinks and should be done away with. The age 60 thing came up, because one guy managed to talk himself into a sweet deal. It was at a time that the company needed a flex guy, and this guy, living up there, was available and current and very capable. The deal was worked out at the highest level of Flight Management. I don't even know if the union had any knowledge of it, or if they did, if they attempted to do anything about it. In the past two days I've called the union office twice and it seems that all the officers are in a 3 day meeting, so nobody has returned my calls yet. When they do, I'll pass whatever I learn along.

This specific question was asked during the LEC 26 meeting today. The chairman of that LEC, JG, stated that this was not true, except for the one guy in ANC. He also said that this would not be a program or policy, so to speak, going forward, it was a one time deal because they needed that guy up in ANC. He said the guy was getting paid as a Boeing S/O and wasn't getting passover.

So the union officials are aware of the situation and feel it is under control.

FJ

Glad it is OK to make exceptions to the CBA if it is just for one guy. I hope I am that one guy when it comes to theLOA and STV.

So, if there is an ANC Capt who is current and qualified and wants to FLEX, shouldn't he be able to displace this guy and take the job?

This is nothing personal against anyone getting a good deal, I just don't like the idea of saying we couldn't find anyone for the job (when they never asked) and then putting in an over 60 guy to fill the position!

Do we really know the history with this situation?

Maybe, just maybe, there was a need for an ANC flex and no one answered the call.

If the call was never made then we definitely have failure to communicate.