Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Cargo
Posting 08-01 Food for Thought... >

Posting 08-01 Food for Thought...

Search
Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines

Posting 08-01 Food for Thought...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-06-2008, 04:50 PM
  #81  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FR8Hauler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,409
Default

Originally Posted by MaydayMark View Post
Isn't that why they "canceled" the last bid and re-posted it? I'll bet that was exactly the reason. That, and maybe a few over 60 ND's "might" bid it just for grins?
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.
FR8Hauler is offline  
Old 01-06-2008, 04:51 PM
  #82  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 83
Default

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.
Open Mind is offline  
Old 01-06-2008, 04:54 PM
  #83  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: FedEx
Posts: 666
Default

So your hostility toward the SIG must be the reason why you figure its ok to fly DPs?

FJ
Falconjet is offline  
Old 01-06-2008, 05:36 PM
  #84  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 83
Default

Originally Posted by Falconjet View Post
So your hostility toward the SIG must be the reason why you figure its ok to fly DPs?

FJ
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.
Open Mind is offline  
Old 01-06-2008, 06:25 PM
  #85  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Ranger's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: MD-11/10 Captain
Posts: 533
Default

Originally Posted by Open Mind View Post
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.
To paraphrase John Wayne in "McClintock", "Just for the tally books....."

Are you flying disputed pairings?
Ranger is offline  
Old 01-06-2008, 06:28 PM
  #86  
Line Holder
 
Oceanside11's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD-11 FO
Posts: 95
Default

Originally Posted by Open Mind View Post
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.
Oceanside11 is offline  
Old 01-07-2008, 06:37 AM
  #87  
Gets Weekends Off
 
MaydayMark's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
Default

Originally Posted by Open Mind View Post
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!!!
Wow ... I can hardly believe I'm agreeing with "Open Mind" (although I still don't think it's OK for her to fly DP's!). Several years ago NW ALPA had a policy that ALL RFO's should be Capts. The logic? This would require more wide-body Capts and that more wide-body Capts was a good thing for everybody on the seniority list! I really think FedEx ALPA missed the boat on this issue (not wanting RF2 pairings?) but I can say that about most of FedEx ALPA's decisions the past few years


Mark

Last edited by MaydayMark; 01-07-2008 at 07:49 AM.
MaydayMark is offline  
Old 01-07-2008, 07:51 AM
  #88  
Gets Weekends Off
 
jagplt's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: 777 Multi-tasker
Posts: 712
Default

hmmmm... makes ya wonder what the real word is on this.

are we for it or against it? I haven't been told yet.
jagplt is offline  
Old 01-08-2008, 02:43 PM
  #89  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FR8Hauler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,409
Default

Originally Posted by Open Mind View Post
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.
This was one of the stupidest things we have done. The company wanted to use two full crews with the extra captain included. We fought it and now have three FO's onboard. That probably equates to about 50 extra MD-11 captain slots lost. Nobody asked my opinion about it either...Once again ALPA decided what was good for me. Some of the captain rfo trips were great deals.
FR8Hauler is offline  
Old 01-08-2008, 02:52 PM
  #90  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FR8Hauler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,409
Default

Originally Posted by Ranger View Post
To paraphrase John Wayne in "McClintock", "Just for the tally books....."

Are you flying disputed pairings?
Or John Wayne as Sgt. Stryker in "The Sands of Iwo Jima" , "Life is tough, but it is tougher if you're stupid."
FR8Hauler is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Pilot41
Domestic
16
04-23-2008 08:31 PM
Joeshmoe
Regional
66
11-06-2007 06:12 PM
Canyonman
Cargo
43
10-12-2007 08:40 AM
LAfrequentflyer
Money Talk
1
08-02-2007 09:56 AM
machz990
Cargo
5
07-26-2007 07:50 AM

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