I just saw pairing 2159/7 Apr show up in open time. It's an 'extra' trip.
It contains the disputed CDG-MAN-MEM sequence.
I don't see this on pairing # on the list of DP's, which is, I assume, b/c it's an 'extra'.
How do these trips get built, and how do we get the 'news' out to people trolling open time?

 

Based on the captain, it is LAX pairing 19.

The 'news' is already out there. You can't help the stupid.

 

Is that a foul to take an LAX DP and turn into a MEM XTRA (Trip 19 LAX DP to MEM 2159 EXTRA)? Hope a reserve gets this.

 

It went to a LAX reserve captain and MEM reserve f/o.

 

Good job guys ... keep up the good work (although I'm still not sure that I fully understand the logic that it's "OK" for the Reserve folks to get stuck with these sh*tty trips!*?)

 

It means they didn't accept draft for them, volunteer for them, use makeup to pick them up or accept them as a substitution trip.

 

Another multiple DP flyer, just picked up 11/08apr

561507

He's a military guy, so if you know him please call him. It probably won't matter because he feels the need to fly 2 DP's this month, but it's worth it.


Also, does anybody else think the SIG might have the CDG-STN/MAN-MEM wrong? All of these trips are good trips except for the last leg, which is perfectly legal leg and we have been flying it for years. Why is the SIG picking this particular sequence to wage war on? There are much worse trips that are not disputed.

Reason I say this is because it looks apparent to me that the membership is saying something to the union by picking up these trips and leaving the really crappy ones in open time. It's really starting to drive me nuts watching these greedy SOB's laugh all the way to the bank.

 

Good question. The reason this sequence is disputed is that it is scheduled right up to the allowed max crew duty day limit of 13:30 hrs. However, that is NOT an FAR, nor a hard and fast limit; the company can currently overwork us past that time with no repercussions at all. And no extra pay.

Big picture-wise, this trip is similar to some of the Asia trips that are also scheduled to 13:30. And they go over that limit routinely. By disputing these, the SIG's position is to attempt to break the sequence up with an added layover, or reschedule to a shorter duty period.

For those not in the MD11, you've no doubt heard of the flights such as MEM-NRT, or CDG-SFS with block hrs nearing 14 hrs. An unrestricted Optimizer would string several duty days like this along on one trip, by adding intermittent cities. It would become a typical trip. The company would love it. MBO points all around.

What the fools that fly DP's don't realize is that by not supporting the SIG, in the not-too-distant future it would be the norm to get off the airplane drooling and needing a shave.

 

Now, I'm confused...On the one hand, we say we want tighter/stronger scheduling limits and language. On the other hand, we think it might be OK for the company to schedule us to the current contractual limits, with a pairing that consistently goes over that limit.

Go figure.

From the SIG April notes: ...The CDG-STN-MEM sequence, while not disputable previously, is now being disputed based upon new times which put the scheduled duty period very close to the 13:30 limit. Based on operational history the STN-MEM has to date blocked in late in 43% of the time it’s flown.

Sorry. But, I can't even imagine trying to lead this group.

 

Show me one trip in all of the system that hasn't blocked in late 43% of the time at some point.