Wanna bet some FDX >60 guys go back without a bid?
12-16-2007, 07:36 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,193
Originally Posted by subicpilot
...I have heard Anyway, my perception on this is that those guys who went to the panel after 60 didn't bid it...they were essentially excessed (removed involuntarily) from a position they held by seniority because they became legally disqualified for that position.
Originally Posted by subicpilot
...With the legal restriction removed, they should, in my opinion, have their pay immediately restored, and be assigned training dates to put them back in the seat they left, or in what ever seat they bid for but were not awarded since they turned 60. There really is no justifiable reason to do otherwise. True, it is a setback for the younger crowd, (me included) but the way I see it, seniority is what it is and we have to respect that.
12-16-2007, 07:43 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: On the corner, covered in Stickum
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by Lindy
For example, keep the ANC nuggets but let the 727 S/Os experience a furlough ?? At this time my faith in the MEC is nil and I expect another sell-out of the junior pilots.
Uh, I don't understand. The ANC nuggets are senior to the most junior 727 S/Os.
12-16-2007, 07:43 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,193
Originally Posted by Fedex999999
...If you never checked out in the back seat, because you turned 60 and went and did "special projects" and the like, you won't have to wait for a rebid to come back up front.
Again... all crew bus scuttlebutt.
Again... all crew bus scuttlebutt.
You are not an "active flight deck crewmember" as required by the recent law.
The other non-Flight Engineer ALPA carrier have plenty of over age 60 guys who still teach ground school or sims, or some other non-active flight deck crewmember jobs....and therefore specifically had the verbiage written this way to prevent those guys from coming back.
Remember folks, retroactivity was not wanted by ALPA or SWA or it would have been included ---- the verbiage that allowed SOs to come back was put in by our MEC for our active SOs.
Great, the active SOs should be welcomed back to the window seats on the next bid ---- to broadened the definition now is to ignore what's written in the law.
12-16-2007, 07:46 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by Lindy
Hypothetically, if we are 300 over staffed NOW before the parking of the 8 MDs, then the furlough word may come into play. It is my understanding if the pilot is out less than two years, the cost benefit to furlough/retrain is negated. Now this is the interesting part: will our MEC permit such a furlough out of seniority? For example, keep the ANC nuggets but let the 727 S/Os experience a furlough ?? At this time my faith in the MEC is nil and I expect another sell-out of the junior pilots.
Yah, I'm sure we're going to furlough. And when we do, I'm sure our MEC will permit furloughing out of seniority. They will totally ignore the provisions that they negotiated into our CBA, and just wing it.
CBA Sec 23.A.1. reads:
A. Furlough
1. Except as provided in Section 23.A.1.b. and A.2., if the Company determines it is necessary to reduce the number of active pilots, the Company shall furlough pilots in reverse order of system seniority as listed on the Master Seniority List.
I've seen so much crap on this forum in the last few days...That I now think the DOT does have "reasonable cause", to drug test us. Maybe, more often.
12-16-2007, 08:01 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: A300CAP
Posts: 479
Originally Posted by DLax85
Nothing happened to them involuntarily. They chose to become a pilot under the FAA rules and the FDX CBA. They chose to train as SOs under FAA rules and the FDX CBA and not take their retirement. No guns to the head from anyone.
Seniority doesn't mean you don't have to play by the rules.
Seniority doesn't mean you don't have to play by the rules.
There are many precedents for this type of thinking in the contract. You get removed from a trip, through no action on your part, normally you keep the CH and dev bank. If YOU drop it, you lose it all. If you are excessed from your seat, you go wherever your seniority can hold. If YOU bid out, there has to be a vacancy where you want to go.
These guys went to the panel because they saw this coming and knew they needed to be on the property to move back to the front. They are playing by the rules. You would do the same in their shoes if you wanted or needed to keep flying.
So, these ARE the rules. Just because they don't happen to benefit YOU or me, doesn't make them any less right.
12-16-2007, 08:02 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
I agree with Busboy.
Lot of tender nerves right now. There is an absence of info. However, everyone should breathe through their nose--deeply. The leap from a slowdown in hiring and the economy to the F-word is a big leap. Just chill for a bit...
Next--nobody on the MEC has indicated any preference for anything EXCEPT bidding for seats. I was as aghast as anyone at DW pushing for retro. However, I have also heard it was intended to A) prevent lawsuits (I sort of scoff) and B) a bid for POP for some of those guys..NOT a seat. He doesn't have me on his Christmas card list, so I can't read his mind...and I'm not yet in a position to directly address these questions. However...my IMPRESSION is the MEC position has been and continues to be folks will BID for seats...not automatically flow into them.
And--if that is NOT the case--we'll soon know the real score. Until then--all this angst and speculation is just guys chasing their tails.
But I understand the pain...and the frustration...at both the situation and the info vacuum the last year. However--even the BEST of unions and MECs won't have 100% SA on a change this big for a while. We will just have to wait this one out a bit. I agree, however, that emailing/calling your rep with your concerns is a good plan.
Lot of tender nerves right now. There is an absence of info. However, everyone should breathe through their nose--deeply. The leap from a slowdown in hiring and the economy to the F-word is a big leap. Just chill for a bit...
Next--nobody on the MEC has indicated any preference for anything EXCEPT bidding for seats. I was as aghast as anyone at DW pushing for retro. However, I have also heard it was intended to A) prevent lawsuits (I sort of scoff) and B) a bid for POP for some of those guys..NOT a seat. He doesn't have me on his Christmas card list, so I can't read his mind...and I'm not yet in a position to directly address these questions. However...my IMPRESSION is the MEC position has been and continues to be folks will BID for seats...not automatically flow into them.
And--if that is NOT the case--we'll soon know the real score. Until then--all this angst and speculation is just guys chasing their tails.
But I understand the pain...and the frustration...at both the situation and the info vacuum the last year. However--even the BEST of unions and MECs won't have 100% SA on a change this big for a while. We will just have to wait this one out a bit. I agree, however, that emailing/calling your rep with your concerns is a good plan.
12-16-2007, 08:02 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Posts: 489
Originally Posted by Lindy
then the furlough word may come into play.
12-16-2007, 08:08 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: MD10 FO
Posts: 307
The minimum bid period guarantee shall be reduced to a minimum of 48/60 CH before any pilot is furloughed. At least a full bid period must follow the announcement of this action. This provision shall only be used to prevent or delay a furlough.
Am I missing something here? That's a 30% reduction in BLG. If we reduce BLG by 30%, will be 1000 pilots short.
Am I missing something here? That's a 30% reduction in BLG. If we reduce BLG by 30%, will be 1000 pilots short.
12-16-2007, 08:10 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: A300CAP
Posts: 479
Originally Posted by USNFDX
The minimum bid period guarantee shall be reduced to a minimum of 48/60 CH before any pilot is furloughed. At least a full bid period must follow the announcement of this action. This provision shall only be used to prevent or delay a furlough.
Am I missing something here? That's a 30% reduction in BLG. If we reduce BLG by 30%, will be 1000 pilots short.
Am I missing something here? That's a 30% reduction in BLG. If we reduce BLG by 30%, will be 1000 pilots short.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
