Ok you are lost.

Can you show me where they could be held liable in court if they go too far when discouraging someone. I am not a lawyer so can you explain the legal term "go too far".

I am not being facetious when I suggest that an educational document listing trips, names, and status of how trip was assigned would not be going to far. We already publish a document with trips and a direct link to names and how the trip is assigned.

As for me posting the list:

1. Accuracy is the most important concern. The union has the resources to make an accurate list, I do not.

2. I only make it to AOC once every other month (on average) so it would be impractical.

Again what is the claim? I flew this trip. They said I flew this trip. And now I am too embareassed to fly this trip again.

 

Well, I'm glad you are so giving. However, when a union starts taking actions prohibited by the RLA, it can get expensive. This fine would amount to about $10K apiece for us. http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/apr1999/aa-a17.shtml

I'm not saying the situations are the same, just that the fines can be a lot more than you would think.

 

My copy of the RLA dosen't prohibit listing trips and names does yours?

 

I don't have a copy of the RLA and doubt I could make heads or tales out of it, assuming it as convoluted as everything else congress puts out. However, if Albie and others say we can't do it for legal reasons, I am willing to go along with him. As I mentioned, in this arena, trodding on your rod can get expensive.

BTW- You guys sure aren't cutting Albie any slack. I thought he was going to be the kinder, newer, gentler voice of the union. I know he spends lots of time on the phone doing union stuff. I've watched him talk non-stop for around an hour, in one of our ramp offices, trying to get stuff done.

 

I will take it one step further. Why should they be assigned to reserves? If they are deemed unsafe by the SIG why don't we raise the BS flag and just say no?

 

Great idea!!

Just one thing, though...How do you propose we do that?

 

CBA §25.BB.E.:

The SIG may formally dispute particular pairings in accordance
with the following process that are inconsistent with the goals
and purposes established elsewhere in this Agreement.

Notice the absence of the term "unsafe." Feel free to look "elsewhere" in the Agreement to read about the goals and purposes established. (Hint: CBA § 25.BB.A.2., CBA §25.BB.C.1.a.i.(a), CBA §25.BB.C.1.a.iii., CBA §25.BB.C.1.c., CBA §25.BB.C.2.c.ii. and iii. for starters.)






.

 

Para 1. No offense to Albie but Due Diligence by our MEC can not be assumed. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice ....

Para 2. Albie does not understand the concept of slack.

 

I think they should publish a list on the website with the disclaimer

"The following crew-members, for different reasons, have chosen to fly disputed pairings in a voluntary status.

Capt Krunch 10 DP's
Capt XX, 3 DP's
Capt YY, 1 DP
Capt ZZ, 5 DP's
etc.

We encourage all of our members to make responsible and professional efforts to encourage these fellow pilots to support the SIG. It is the FedEx MEC's intention that the pilots on this list be afforded the same level of professional courtesy and respect that is afforded to all our member pilots. Any suggestion by individual pilots to the contrary is not condoned by the FedEx MEC. Should any disputed pairing fliers feel that they have been subjected to any form of harassment or intimidation they should immediately report this to the FedEx MEC Professional Standards Committee for corrective action. This information is published for administrative purposes only.

According to ALPA records the above information is correct. If you feel that an error has been made, please call us ASAP at the FedEx MEC office"


Now someone tell me why we can do this for the non-member list and not DP fliers? With this list, I can see a guy has flown only 1 DP I can make a pretty good call about whether or not they are making a living by not supporting the SIG (like the 11 Capt that picked up 175 hours of DP flying this month) or made a one time mistake. I am quite sure publishing the above will make a lot more pilots pay attention to what they ask for and the SIG will get a lot more support by those actions. I would think the disclaimer's that are good enough for the NM list should be good enough for DP pilots as well.

 

I realize it is in the CBA. Thanks for the insight, but it is still BS.