FDX - APR Disputed Pairings
03-15-2008 | 03:18 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
From: Row well and live...
Here's a better question:
I wonder what the #of DPs in ANC compared to # in MEM would look like if the MEM pilots stopped flying disputed pairings? Hmmmmm...
There's your answer.
03-15-2008 | 03:29 PM
#12
Thread Starter
...Whatever It Is!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
Likes: 0
OT doesn't stay open long, DP or not! Every now and then, sitting here in my crashpad on reserve, I grab OT using BidX to see what CRS might call me for! Anything that pops up, pretty much disapears the next time I check OT. These guys are just keeping me sitting in MEM on reserve watching NCAA basketball!
03-16-2008 | 08:39 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
From: A300 F/O
True. I remember similiar pairings in the Boeing. Just seems to water down the terms CFIT MODERATE/HIGH when you pack three and four of them together during a short period of time. I'll pass the info regarding my trip onto the PSIT and see what happens. Thanks guys.
03-16-2008 | 10:14 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
Does the union and/or the SIG look at pairings that pass through multiple CFIT MOD/HIGH fields in a short period of time when considering if something should be disputed? My trip this past week (not a DP) went through 2 CFIT MODERATE fields (one with non-tower ops) and a CFIT HIGH within a 24 hour period. In addition, the layover in between fields had us taking off within 11 1/2 hours of blocking in. Very quick turn considering the CFIT categories you're dealing with. Inputs?
03-17-2008 | 01:08 AM
#17
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
From: 777 FO
Let’s see if I’ve got this straight. Our collective union says disputed pairings are onerous and are potentially detrimental to safety. Without published supporting rationale we’re supposed to blindly follow their guidance. In the meantime, our least experienced crews are forced to fly these same pairings. Wow, there’s an original safety thought for you! This is all from the same union that promised the moon with respect to analytical contract advice but missed the boat on numerous issues (all discussed previously in this forum), sold us down the river with respect to the FDA, and ignored the majority on age 65. I for one am done with blindly following union recommendations and will assess DPs based upon my own evaluation of the pairing in question. I quite sure there are numerous others that feel likewise. I’m not trying to start a war here and I respect how strongly you guys feel but I’ve felt the need to say this for some time. Maybe you folks can convince me that I’m wrong but my trust in our union is currently deeply in the red.
03-17-2008 | 03:13 AM
#18
Ready for a nap
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
From: md11
Bandit, The SIG DOES publish exactly why the DP's are onerous. All you have to do is read the SIG notes that are published every month. It is broken down trip by trip. Then they list the trip #and date so even morons shouldn't "accidently" pick up a DP.
I agree with your feelings about the Union in general, but don't take your anger out on the SIG. They are the only ones who are willing to stand up to the Company and raise the bullsh1t flag. You need to redirect your anger at our MEC leadership who accepted a worthless contract and FDA.
7/32
I agree with your feelings about the Union in general, but don't take your anger out on the SIG. They are the only ones who are willing to stand up to the Company and raise the bullsh1t flag. You need to redirect your anger at our MEC leadership who accepted a worthless contract and FDA.
7/32
03-17-2008 | 04:13 AM
#19
Thread Starter
...Whatever It Is!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
Likes: 0
Let’s see if I’ve got this straight. Our collective union says disputed pairings are onerous and are potentially detrimental to safety. Without published supporting rationale we’re supposed to blindly follow their guidance. In the meantime, our least experienced crews are forced to fly these same pairings. Wow, there’s an original safety thought for you! This is all from the same union that promised the moon with respect to analytical contract advice but missed the boat on numerous issues (all discussed previously in this forum), sold us down the river with respect to the FDA, and ignored the majority on age 65. I for one am done with blindly following union recommendations and will assess DPs based upon my own evaluation of the pairing in question. I quite sure there are numerous others that feel likewise. I’m not trying to start a war here and I respect how strongly you guys feel but I’ve felt the need to say this for some time. Maybe you folks can convince me that I’m wrong but my trust in our union is currently deeply in the red.
03-17-2008 | 04:56 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
From: 57 Capt
bandit-
do you consider yourself an "independent contractor" or "i'm working on my high five" or "other guys are picking them up, why shouldn't i" or "oops, i didn't know it was diputed and i'm trying to drop it (but never do)".....etc, etc, etc.
just like non-members, excuses are like as&^%les, everybody has one.
we HAVE to support the SIG or we will have no one else to blame about the crappy bidpacks.
do you consider yourself an "independent contractor" or "i'm working on my high five" or "other guys are picking them up, why shouldn't i" or "oops, i didn't know it was diputed and i'm trying to drop it (but never do)".....etc, etc, etc.
just like non-members, excuses are like as&^%les, everybody has one.
we HAVE to support the SIG or we will have no one else to blame about the crappy bidpacks.
Last edited by pdo bump; 03-17-2008 at 09:48 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
