Posting 08-01 Food for Thought...
#81
Let's just keep cancelling and rescheduling bids until we get the desired results. Meanwhile what is ALPA doing about it except saying it "looks like this is is within the contract?" What about all the guys who had upgrade bids that now are cancelled so the geriatrics can come back? What about all of the "purple nuggets" who were never told they were seat locked but now are? This is such a crock of $hit, and I am not even upset with the company because I think they are doing a much better job at damage control and putting out info than ALPA is. DW and the rest of the hierarchy when do you announce your big move to ALPA national? "Ya all" better get with the program or you are going to actually going to have to fly the line again.
#82
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 83
Sorry to disagree but the Sig definitely objected to the use to Capt's as RFO in any situation. I immediately spoke with many union officer's and was told that this was the union's position which had the support of the entire membership... I guess I didn't count!!! Possibly, other's can recall the communication's from the Sig and the system cp. Also, when the company decided to use Capt's as RFO in a 3 man crew because of a shortage of fos at the time, there was a note in the bid pack stating that they would only do so in a three man crew so as not to go against union objections in a 4 man crew which were most strenuous.
#84
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 83
I'm a member of ALPA as I assume you are... I evaluate every decision of the MEC and its representatives and committees. I don't hold any part of the union as above criticism as many here seem to hold the SIG. They work hard for us as do the MEC officers but no one here seems relucant to hold the MEC accountable for its decisions. The entire DP program has been a mess from the very beginning and has never been supported by the crew force. Recently our pairing are on a steep decline but we waste time disputing IND-STN-CDG and CDG-STN-MEM in both cases for the RFO, while same duty time deadheads are ruining the quality of all bid packs both domestic and intl. The airbridge contract expired and the company is used our jumpseats out of Subic rather than ground trans to Manila. At the end of pairings...where is the operational necessity??? The contract only allows company jumpseat for operational necessity, where is the objection/ grievance?? The message line I read was very cordial and didn't mention the clear contract violation. However... to answer your question, I'm not hostile toward the SIG. I expect all divisions of "our" union to do the jobs they were elected or appointed to do.
#85
I'm a member of ALPA as I assume you are... I evaluate every decision of the MEC and its representatives and committees. I don't hold any part of the union as above criticism as many here seem to hold the SIG. They work hard for us as do the MEC officers but no one here seems relucant to hold the MEC accountable for its decisions. The entire DP program has been a mess from the very beginning and has never been supported by the crew force. Recently our pairing are on a steep decline but we waste time disputing IND-STN-CDG and CDG-STN-MEM in both cases for the RFO, while same duty time deadheads are ruining the quality of all bid packs both domestic and intl. The airbridge contract expired and the company is used our jumpseats out of Subic rather than ground trans to Manila. At the end of pairings...where is the operational necessity??? The contract only allows company jumpseat for operational necessity, where is the objection/ grievance?? The message line I read was very cordial and didn't mention the clear contract violation. However... to answer your question, I'm not hostile toward the SIG. I expect all divisions of "our" union to do the jobs they were elected or appointed to do.
Are you flying disputed pairings?
#86
I'm a member of ALPA as I assume you are... I evaluate every decision of the MEC and its representatives and committees. I don't hold any part of the union as above criticism as many here seem to hold the SIG. They work hard for us as do the MEC officers but no one here seems relucant to hold the MEC accountable for its decisions. The entire DP program has been a mess from the very beginning and has never been supported by the crew force. Recently our pairing are on a steep decline but we waste time disputing IND-STN-CDG and CDG-STN-MEM in both cases for the RFO, while same duty time deadheads are ruining the quality of all bid packs both domestic and intl. The airbridge contract expired and the company is used our jumpseats out of Subic rather than ground trans to Manila. At the end of pairings...where is the operational necessity??? The contract only allows company jumpseat for operational necessity, where is the objection/ grievance?? The message line I read was very cordial and didn't mention the clear contract violation. However... to answer your question, I'm not hostile toward the SIG. I expect all divisions of "our" union to do the jobs they were elected or appointed to do.
So you're not hostile toward the SIG, but the big question still remains. Do you think it's OK to fly DPs?
You read my mind Ranger...I was just too slow on the draw. Sorry for the double post.
#87
The problem has faded away only because the current practice is to use 1 capt and 3 fos on over 12 hr legs which is the result of the Sig and MEC objecting to the use of capts as RFO in 3 or 4 man crews, so the crew force won... less capt positions!! If you check our current FOM you will find that on a 4 man crew, if manned with 2 capts and 2 fos, the senior capt is the PIC, regardless of pairing. This will become an issue especially with the 777 because the contract requires any new over 12 hr segment to be manned with 2 capts and 2 fos for the first 3 months...also any new MD legs. IMHO, this objection by the Sig was ill conceived.. 1) it cost capt positions, lowering crew compensation and upgrades 2) we should negotiate to have all RFO positions manned with capts 3) now a mute point, but not many on the MD agree with the position that a guy should be able to bid RFO then demand to be PIC, it hurts crew integrity. All opinions welcome!!!
Mark
Last edited by MaydayMark; 01-07-2008 at 07:49 AM.
#89
Sorry to disagree but the Sig definitely objected to the use to Capt's as RFO in any situation. I immediately spoke with many union officer's and was told that this was the union's position which had the support of the entire membership... I guess I didn't count!!! Possibly, other's can recall the communication's from the Sig and the system cp. Also, when the company decided to use Capt's as RFO in a 3 man crew because of a shortage of fos at the time, there was a note in the bid pack stating that they would only do so in a three man crew so as not to go against union objections in a 4 man crew which were most strenuous.
#90
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post