UPS Question
 

Does UPS have disputed pairings? The FedEx guys are always up in arms about them, but UPS guys do not seem to be. Does UPS have no horrible trip pairs, or do the UPS pilots just not complain about them? Does UPS have anything like disputed pairings that irritates the group as a whole? Just wondering - thank you.

what's a disputed pairing?

Who's on first?

It's a pairing that, although legal, is considered to be dangerous as far as rest and fatigue are concerned.

Yes we do, we just use a different term. We call them "bid packages" :D

LMAO!!! Every line in ANC is is a disputed pairing!

Well done!

even in CGN, I still got it!

Funniest thing I have read on APC! Well done indeed.

Seriously, do the UPS guys have things that chap them, or are the FedEx guys just whiners?:D

From the sounds of it, picking up open time seems to be a little of an issue, but not nearly as hostile a deal as the FedEx guys with their DP's.

Ultimately, the point of this is to get to any great cultural differences between the two carriers - everyone lumps them together as dream jobs (rightly so), but I was mostly trying to exam differences between the two. Culture, pilot attitudes, relationship with management, etc.

Both are exceptional opportunities - just trying to understand better.

767 Pilot is correct. We have some pretty ugly stuff, and there is no such animal as a disputed pairing in our contract, so we pretty much have to grin and bear it. In the past what has happened with some of the very worst pairings is that guys would call in fatigued often enough that the company would change them around, or sometimes just shift them to another domicile to see if anyone noticed. Ultimately, the boxes not moving gets the company's attention. OTOH, there are plenty of folks willing to "tough it out" even when they are babbling incoherently and bleeding out of their eyeballs.

I dont think the FDX guys are "whiners." Actually it would tweak me pretty badly if we had used negotiating capital to get such a thing as "disputed pairings" and they were getting picked up out of OT faster than a weekend HNL layover, so I understand the frustration. The company comes back to them and says, "well if this DP is so bad, why does it only last 30 seconds on the OT list? You guys must just be whining about nothing." Then the pairing becomes "undisputed" and the schedules spiral down the toilet. Unfortunately the negotiators should have seen that coming. Trying to get guys to not pick up OT, any OT (disputed or not) that is allowed in the contract is futile. Its just the way it is.

I think that VB laid it our pretty well. We used to have pretty good involvement and interchange between our union scheduling group and the company. They were able to work out a lot of problems. Our latest scheduling VP has stopped all that and feels that if a trip is legal by the contract, it is good to go and no comments from the union are necessary. Like VB says, sometimes the company gets enough line pilot input in the form of fatigue calls to change a trip, otherwise we pretty much suck it up and tough it out. We're tougher than those purple crybabies ;)

If a trip is within the written rules, and this happens, how can anyone say that the company is wrong in believing it? We have a bunch of crappy trips and for the most part they are traded away by lineholders and sit in open time with nobody touching them. Unfortunately they are left for reserves....seniority has its' privileges. The key, for us and FDX, is better rules and for us in particular, more involvement with bid package construction.

Would it surprise anyone to hear that UPS offered the IPA $500,000 a year to be involved in this process? Would it surprise you to hear that we turned it down as a group? It's true.

Why??????????????????????????????

It was offered as part of a package that would allow the company to use FO's as relief pilots in the MD-11 in 2002. We thought we could do better I guess. We didn't, and guess who the relief pilots became in the MD-11 soon after? Right, FO's.
(note first year pay among other things)

March 22, 2002


Fellow IPA Members:

We are pleased to announce that the IPA Executive Board has reached a tentative agreement with UPS management on the issue of crewing the MD-11 with international relief officers (IROs.) This tentative agreement will be placed before the membership for a ratification vote in the coming weeks.

As you know, the IPA first began discussing issues that included IROs for the “long range freighter” in early 2000. Meetings held in Florida—first in 2000 and then in 2001—centered on changes to our contract needed by UPS management primarily in the arena of international operations. The discussions began on a small number of issues. As time passed, they grew increasingly complex and lengthy. By late summer of 2001, the issues under discussion to benefit the Company had grown to include:

1. IRO language for the MD-11. UPS wanted the ability to operate the MD-11 between 8-12 block hours in a duty period. This change would not increase duty or decrease rest requirements and would mirror what the contract currently allows on the B-767.

2. Double crewing language for the MD-11. The Company sought the ability to operate the MD-11 over 12 hours of block. Currently the contract provides this for the B-747-200 only (see Article 14.M.)

3. IRO language for the B-747-400. Although the Company does not currently own the 400, they made proposals seeking to have the contract modified to allow IRO’s on the B-747-400.

4. IRO language for the A-300. The Company proposed extending IRO language to the A-300.

5. Double crewing language for the B-747-400. UPS proposed extending the double crewing language to the B-747-400.

6. Save training costs by ability to hire F/O’s off the street. As the number of “back seat” airplanes decrease, the current contract’s requirement to hire into the S/O position is increasingly costly to the Company. Currently, the only relief given to the Company in our contract is when there are insufficient bidders for new first officer vacancies. When people on the property don’t bid the seats, the contract allows the Company to hire off the street to fill unwanted F/O positions. UPS asked for this ability on an ongoing basis. S/O’s already on the property would be pay protected, under the Company’s proposal, on a one-for-one basis.

7. MIA Reserve/MD-11 Reserve system. The current reserve system was not designed for the flying being performed out of the MIA domicile or the international flying planned for the MD-11. The Company sought a new way to handle reserves in MIA and on the MD-11 that would be better suited to the UPS operation.

8. New aircraft implementation rules. Under the current contract, the introduction of a new fleet type is costly and cumbersome to the Company. For example, our contract limits training and consolidation flying to 5% of the lines in any fleet. On a new fleet, this can mean only one or two consolidation lines. This severely limits and delays training. UPS proposed a set of rules that would be temporarily in place and only affect the new aircraft type being introduced.

9. International Theaters of Operation. Current international rest and duty limits are pinching the Company in its operations, such as intra-Europe, that more closely resemble domestic operations in the U.S. UPS proposed modified domestic rules when crewmembers are operating within defined international “theaters” of operation. International rules would remain applicable to longer flights such as those involving trans-oceanic crossings.

10. Extended duty into theater. Under current contract rules, it takes UPS two, three, and in some cases four days to position the crewmember internationally before the pilot turns the first wheel. UPS would like to become more efficient in this area by having the ability to schedule extended duty days for the purpose of positioning or depositioning crewmembers from operating into or out of defined international theaters. This proposal was discussed in the context of requiring more rest after performing this longer duty day and guaranteeing first class or business class commercial service on all legs.

11. IRO’s for 32 in 7 requirement when Company operating under FAR international flag rules. The Company sought the ability to place an IRO on flights that require an IRO under FAR international flag rules.

12. Displaced crewmembers option of picking up OT or JA during displacement period. In order to increase the productivity of crewmembers who are displaced, the Company wanted the ability to provide these pilots with the option (their choice) of picking up open time or accepting junior available assignments while displaced. Crewmembers would be paid for the displaced trip and also for the open time or JA (150%) trip.

The above items outline what UPS was seeking from the Association. As of early September, 2001, the Association and the Company were very close to finalizing a comprehensive mid-term agreement. UPS had accepted modifications to the above list that we felt were needed to protect the membership. In return for these modified items, the parties were discussing a range of benefits for the pilot group that included substantial pay and pension increases, benefit enhancements, a staffing model, and additional scheduling rules.

Of course we are all too familiar with the tragedy of September 11th and its aftermath in affecting the national and global economy. In the days and weeks immediately following the 11th, the parties held no discussions concerning a mid-term agreement. When informal discussions were held in December, the Company indicated that while they still wanted the contract changes to benefit the Company, they maintained that there was “no stomach” in Atlanta to increase the cost of our contract anywhere near the dollars that had been under discussion previous to the tragedies.

While we have always been sensitive to the Company’s financial health, the EB has seen no evidence to indicate that UPS has any less “ability to pay” now as opposed to when we were discussing these items in early September. We believe that the change in perception on the Company’s part is more psychological than financial. Again, while we are sympathetic to the Company’s finances—our message to management was that we were perfectly content to wait until 2003-04 (the next scheduled contract negotiation) to discuss these items.

In January, we were approached by the Company concerning the possibility of doing a greatly scaled down agreement now, and addressing the other items on the Company’s list later. While it has always been our preference to deal with these issues in a single package, it became very apparent that UPS is now only interested in dealing with the nearest crisis. The nearest crisis right now for the Company is finding a way to crew the MD-11 between 8:00-12:00 block hours—this requires an IRO.

END PART 1

PART 2


We considered rejecting the Company’s overtures and telling them that it was one large package or nothing at all. After substantial thought and discussion, we decided that that approach would be a mistake. Here’s why:

1. We believe it is in the best long term interest of the pilot group that the Company be allowed to grow the airline by not blocking the MD-11 program. This is in our best interest—not just the Company’s.

2. We believe that an agreement on one (1) of the twelve (12) pieces sought by the Company does not compromise our leverage in future talks on a possible second mid-term agreement or for the contract talks now scheduled to begin as early as this Fall. Even after this tentative agreement, the Company does not have other critical pieces needed for what eventually will be a tremendous international flying expansion. For example even with the MD-11, the Company cannot double crew nor do they have a reserve system that works for long MD-11 flights. If the B-747-400 is purchased, they will have to negotiate IRO, double crewing, and a reserve system all over again.

3. In the January general membership meetings, we asked pilots whether or not they would want to see and have the opportunity to vote on a slimmed-down package that the Company would agree to in exchange for just one of the twelve items on their list—the MD-11 IROs. Members overwhelmingly said they would like the opportunity to see any such package and make a determination for themselves.

Of course coming up with an agreement limited in scope to IROs on the MD-11 still took a significant amount of work. During January and February, we pushed the Company to what—in the EB’s opinion—was the breaking point on concessions to the pilot group in exchange for the MD-11 IROs.

We have a package now that addresses some key items that will not have to be negotiated from scratch in the next round of contract negotiations. The package we have tentatively agreed to, subject to IPA member ratification, includes:

First Year New Hire Pay

· New hire pay increased by 50% effective May 18, 2002 or date of ratification, whichever is earlier. All other parts of the agreement are effective as of the date the Company is first allowed to use International Relief Officers on the MD-11.

· Current pay rate of $2,000 per pay period ($26,000 annual) increased to $3,000 per pay period ($39,000 annual.)

· Hourly rate for new hires (for hours above 75) increased from $26.67 per hour to $40.00 per hour.

Increases to the Defined Contribution Money Purchase Pension Plan (“B Plan”)

· In addition to all current contributions, the Company will commence paying 11% on revisions to the original bid line that increase the value of the line over 75 hours;

· The Company will start paying 11% on open time trips and any revisions to open time trips;

· The Company will start paying 11% on junior available trips (JA) and any revisions to the JA trips;

· UPS will pay 11% on the new 125% premium pay outlined in the next section.

· The current pension plan will be amended to allow for these additional contributions.

· Any amounts generated by the 11% pension contributions that are in excess of government limits will be paid out in cash in the pay period they were earned.

Open Time Paid on Top of Guarantee

· Crewmembers paid full value of open time trips regardless of number of days or number of credit hours on original line.

· In other words, all open time paid on top of a crewmember’s guarantee.

· Crewmembers will be paid on top of guarantee for any hours generated above bid line due to a trip trade with open time.

New 125% Line Construction Premium Pay for Hours in Excess of 75 on Regular and VTO Lines

· Crewmembers who bid a regular or VTO line (includes reserve move-up lines) containing more than 75 hours in a bid package, will be paid a 25% premium for those hours in excess of 75 published as part of the original line.

· The premium payment is for those hours in excess of 75 on the original bid line as published in the bid package and does not include carry-in.

· Crewmembers bidding lines in excess of 75 may trade trips with open time or other crewmembers and retain the premium so long as the pay and credit associated with the open time pick-up or trade produces a line equal to or greater than the original line.

Ticket Bank Utilization Expanded by One Bid Period

· Contract amended to allow crewmembers two (2) rather than the current one (1) bid period in which to use ticket bank monies.

· For the bid period following September/October, crewmembers would have a total of three (3) bid periods in which to use ticket bank monies.

IPA Scheduling Involvement Paid for by UPS

· The Company agrees to pay trip drops for up to three IPA Scheduling Committee members at a time who are working on IPA efforts to improve bid package pairings and lines.

PNF/FNP Trip Trades Allowed Between Domiciles

· Crewmembers will be allowed to trade trips with other crewmembers in any domicile on the same basis as trading trips within a domicile.

Crewmembers on Military Leave Given 2 Full Pay Periods to Make Up Credit

· Crewmembers on military leave will be given two (2) full pay periods after returning from military leave to make up any time and have it credited back to the pay period(s) in which the military leave was taken in order to restore vacation and sick leave accruals.

All Duty Periods which include a Commercial Deadhead Originating Out of a Crewmember’s Domicile will be scheduled for Two Hours of pay and credit instead of the current One Hour, Domestic and One and One-Half Hours International

· The Company will recognize two (2:00) hours preceding a commercial deadhead which begins a trip for pay and credit purposes. Currently, one hour (1:00) is allowed for domestic and one and one half hour (1:30) is allowed for international commercial departures. There is no requirement to actually fly out of your domicile in order to receive the additional pay and credit. Current contract show time requirements will remain unchanged and the additional pay and credit does not count as duty time.

UPS May Use IROs on MD-11

· The Company gets the right to assign International Relief Officer (IRO) duties to MD-11 First Officers. IROs are required by the FAA on flights with pilots who are scheduled to fly 8:00 to 12:00 hours in a duty period.

· The IRO premium of Article 12.C. will be paid to F/O’s performing these duties.

· For MD-11 flights scheduled with an IRO, the total number of jumpseaters will be limited to two (2) in addition to the IRO.

· The MD-11 water system will be reactivated and maintained prior to the aircraft’s use in international operations.

We believe the above items represent a reasonable package that is fair to UPS and one that is fair to us. Rather than one comprehensive mid-term agreement, we believe the Company will be back for more prior to the contract’s amendable date of 12/31/03. There may be an opportunity to have another mid-term package available before negotiations start for a new contract, or we may move directly into early negotiations. The Company has indicated that they will be prepared to begin discussions as early as this Fall following completion of the Teamsters agreement with the drivers.

It is not our intent to try to “sell” you or convince anyone to vote for this package. The pilot group is made up of intelligent people and you can think and read for yourself. We expect that each of you will come to an independent decision. We ask that everyone vote once the ballots are mailed in approximately two weeks.

As Board members, we do, however, recognize our responsibility to explain the agreement, and to be very candid with you in our personal assessments. When we concluded negotiations in 1998, there were alarmists who predicted that our “bargaining leverage was gone” and that we would see no contract improvements for “10 years.” When we announced in the summer of 2000 that significant issues were under discussion, critics said that we had “no leverage” and that our announcement was made for political reasons.

Our task as Board members has been to stay focused on our original plan, and to not become overly concerned with critics. When the contract was completed in 1998, we knew that UPS had failed to obtain numerous key components that would increasingly become obvious as the airline expanded international operations. Beginning with the first Florida meeting in February of 2000, we deliberately called attention to these “missing pieces” of the contract for UPS, and attempted to devise solutions that work for them as well as for us.

UPS does not get in a hurry. Neither do we. The current tentative agreement is the first tangible indication of our joint efforts over the last two years. We do not believe it will be the last. We are in the beginning stages of this process—not at the end.

Your support and confidence have been critical to allowing us to not be rushed, and in giving us the space to show the Company that we will not be hurried into an agreement that does not meet our interests. The support of this pilot group for your elected leadership is the absolute prerequisite for our success. We continue to be grateful for your support.

Fraternally,

Capt. Robert M. Miller
President, IPA

Capt. Richard W. Halsall
Vice President, IPA

Capt. Herb Hurst
Secretary, IPA

Capt. John Andersen
Treasurer, IPA

Lauri Esposito
At-Large Representative, IPA

What a shame... We gave away Capt. IRO's for nothing... Hindsight is 20/20

As explained, no DP's, but we do have a similiar species that I suspect are of the same foul parental lineage that we have at Brown;
Called a "Base Trip Line" and these fatigue inducing buggers generally go very junior.
Base Trip Lines can be up to 20% of our flying lines constructed in each fleet/seat. They are clock switchers day to night, short layovers, etc. that are desired by our collective companies to make us more effective and productive. It is a concession to make the majority of our constructed flying lines safer and more quality. It is a trade that was negotiated by both groups.
That being said, we don't begrudge the crew for selecting one of these lines since it isn't disputed, just another "living the dream" line <g> [one nightmare at a time] experience. ;)

That's funny! :)

Yes it is. When we voted no, we thought it was because it was worth more than what was offered and instead we ended up with another sideletter:(

True, and we also thought since we were almost at openers, we could use the leverage across a the entire spectrum of negotiations and that it would motivate UPS to negotiate quicker (remember we were going to use Interest Based Bargaining) A bitter lesson

767 pilot, that's why I've always said that our turning down the midterm T/A in 2001 was one of the most stupid decisions this pilot group has made. Second to voting in T.N., who was exposed by the neg. cmte early on as a know-nothing.

When newhires complain about first year pay, I sadly inform them that their peers at UPS voted down a large pay raise that was part of the T/A. That it's high time we stop blaming the company at least on this one.

We have complained that some trips are unsafe in MIA. The group has to make the claim before it appears in three bid packages. After that, the Company will say you have been doing it all along. The trips will be removed from lines and go to open time. If no one trades into them they have to be covered by M pilots. You have to be carefull in using it because if they goto open time and everyone trades into them - the company will lose respect for the scheduling comittee rep.

I'm with you in the first paragraph, but not the second. The company did not put that (or much else in that proposal) back on the table. They were adamant about not raising it according to the negotiators.

The fact that our crack team was not even able to get this contract up to the standards set by the last EB in a post 9/11 adjustment package shows the premium we all paid for electing a knucklehead (ok, a few well meaning knuckleheads) to our EB.

No excuses,there is a lot of blame to go around including each and every one of us. I hope that this gets straightened out in the next few years but I haven't seen any indications that this group is getting the leadership it needs.

I forgot about that. There was language before, I guess it is still in there, that we were able to turn down a certain percentage of NEW lines for circadian issues. I don't think we've ever had much luck pushing that one.

Perzactly. Name me one line that we "contested" or "turned down?" I dont understand why we dont use this provision? Seems like it should be used every bid period without fail. But maybe I just dont get it, thats probabaly it........