FDX - ANC Disputed Update

Reply Subscribe

Page 6 of 7

« First

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

03-03-2008, 07:59 AM

#51

jagplt

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: May 2007

Position: 777 Multi-tasker

Posts: 712

On a positive note, the newbe F/O that came from the back seat to ANC right seat clearly didn't know about the seriousness of the dp situation... he's aware of it after we talked, he promptly dropped the DP trip on the 9th...

He's standing tall, won't make that mistake again.. gotta love progress, I'm buying him beers on the next flight we have together! positive reinforcement!

03-03-2008, 08:46 AM

#52

2cylinderdriver

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Jun 2006

Posts: 732

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLMD11CAPT

Once again the water is being muddied:

Folks, If a DP is picked up (not on reserve) out of open time three times for ANY reason, whether it is going to be flown or not, it becomes no longer disputable in the future. So you guys defending these DP "picker-uppers" go to the Head-Butt doctor and get it pulled out.

While I like your way..this is the facts from the CBA:

1. The SIG may use the pairing dispute procedure described
in this paragraph only to dispute new pairings. A “new”
pairing is one which is materially different from the way the
pairing was constructed in the three previous bid periods.
A pairing is not new if it has been built and flown materially
the same way without challenge for three consecutive bid
periods after 5/31/1999. A change in a deadhead carrier or
service provider (e.g., change from Delta to United or from
Super Shuttle to Argenbright) shall not, by itself, constitute a
material change unless such deadhead change eliminates
a layover or occurs mid-pairing.

The basic point is, if a pairing has flown 3 months prior to being disputed by the SIG, it is no longer allowed to be disputed. What hurts the argument is when they argue the dispute with the company, the Company uses the data on who flew/picked up he pairing Voluntarily as a stick to beat us. Flying one voluntarily does not make it un-disputable, but doing so has the same effect by taking away a significant part of our power to affect change.

"It can't be that bad, 24/25 pairings were picked up under a code other than RSV !" Hard to argue that one. Generally the guys picking up disputes are JUNIOR, trying to make their lives better, well someday all the pairings will look like this crap if you do not get on board and do it fast.

03-04-2008, 06:05 PM

#53

FR8Hauler

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Mar 2006

Posts: 1,409

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLMD11CAPT

Nobody is defending them. They are on their own on this one. Try to talk some common sense, but if they don't come around then what can you do?

03-04-2008, 06:11 PM

#54

Cujo

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Jun 2007

Position: Great White North

Posts: 391

Quote:

Originally Posted by FR8Hauler

Nobody is defending them. They are on their own on this one. Try to talk some common sense, but if they don't come around then what can you do?

... cross them off the X-Mas list...and any other list...then put them on the "other" list.

03-04-2008, 07:10 PM

#55

DYNASTY HVY

Retired

Joined APC: Feb 2008

Position: whale wrangler

Posts: 3,527

Rofl !Let me guess ,you guys work for the same carrier and have crew sched problems? We schould be so lucky .

03-05-2008, 04:59 AM

#56

jagplt

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: May 2007

Position: 777 Multi-tasker

Posts: 712

has anyone got an update on the 2 F/O's and the single Capt that picked up the dp's here in ANC?

03-06-2008, 04:45 AM

#57

jagplt

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: May 2007

Position: 777 Multi-tasker

Posts: 712

I just checked and it seems the F/O on 2083, JB dropped the trip, his sched shows sck with reserve on the line... looks like it went to a reserve.

still nothing on ks and tw. both holding tight to their DP flyer status.

03-06-2008, 07:41 PM

#58

steel

Line Holder

Joined APC: Jul 2007

Posts: 83

TW screwed up and picked up a dp, which is a carry over trip. Obviously, he cannot drop it until open time is released, which will be too late. Hopefully, he has learned from this HUGE mistake and will honor the code next month.

03-06-2008, 07:50 PM

#59

Busboy

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Aug 2006

Position: leaning to the left

Posts: 4,184

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2cylinderdriver

While I like your way..this is the facts from the CBA:

1. The SIG may use the pairing dispute procedure described
in this paragraph only to dispute new pairings. A “new”
pairing is one which is materially different from the way the
pairing was constructed in the three previous bid periods.
A pairing is not new if it has been built and flown materially
the same way without challenge for three consecutive bid
periods after 5/31/1999. A change in a deadhead carrier or
service provider (e.g., change from Delta to United or from
Super Shuttle to Argenbright) shall not, by itself, constitute a
material change unless such deadhead change eliminates
a layover or occurs mid-pairing.

The basic point is, if a pairing has flown 3 months prior to being disputed by the SIG, it is no longer allowed to be disputed. What hurts the argument is when they argue the dispute with the company, the Company uses the data on who flew/picked up he pairing Voluntarily as a stick to beat us. Flying one voluntarily does not make it un-disputable, but doing so has the same effect by taking away a significant part of our power to affect change.
"It can't be that bad, 24/25 pairings were picked up under a code other than RSV !" Hard to argue that one. Generally the guys picking up disputes are JUNIOR, trying to make their lives better, well someday all the pairings will look like this crap if you do not get on board and do it fast.

Like this: CBA Sec 25 BB.F.1.c

Additionally, if on a recurring basis, a pairing, disputed or not, appears in open time and is routinely avoided by pilots trip trading or eligible for make-up, OTP, etc., and therefore must be assigned to a reserve pilot, the above procedure shall apply, unless the Association elects to pursue the VP/MEC Chairman track instead.