I agree.

I agree.

I agree.

I agree.

It is.

No worries, there's bound to be plenty more! :o

Now, all of the above said, the training letter does not reflect paragraphs 2-4:(

Can you give me a few specific examples...I'm thick in the head...

As far as the CDG pilots, they are able to essentially choose a seat they could have held on the bid they were awarded CDG or subsequent bid(s) prior to being canceled. If they choose to stay in their current seat then they can bid "normally" in 08-02.

It really does not matter what they had on their bid during the award to CDG, they get a redo on that award, but only to seats they could of held on that bid(s). That is where it differs from an excess. The CDG FO you speak of can just show up on the HKG CA award if that is what she decided to do. This is spelled out in the CBA, somewhat clearly !:rolleyes:

BTW, this is not ALPA's fault, read the latest LEC 7 Update, it is well written.

4. Cancellation of Awards
a. The Company may cancel an award/assignment of a crew
position in reverse seniority order provided it does so at
least 30 days prior to the pilot’s scheduled training date.
A pilot whose award/assignment is canceled may either
remain in his current crew position, or exercise his seniority
for an award or a vacancy posting that occurred between
the date his crew position was awarded and the date it was
canceled. He shall be eligible to receive passover pay if:

You know what, never mind...I think I see what you are talking about. Let me look over the training letter a bit...

Unclear still.
 

I understand your argument, but I do not think I have adequately explained mine. I have read on numerous occasions, the Filling of Vacancy language in our CBA. However, I still do not understand how the company is picking and choosing vacancies and our union is not doing anything about it.

Posting 200703 called for 46 30CH. Posting 200801 called for an additional 3 30 HC. Pilot math brings the total 30HC to 49.

Posting 200802 has 62 30CH awards with no vacancies listed in the FCIF.

All 757 bids have been cancelled at FDX at least once and now the FDA at CDG is closed. Now the FO in question is out of luck for a trip to Paris and is in an "excess" situation in Subic. Now she is awarded 30HC with no seats available.

The LEC letter is worthless as usual. How can someone move to a seat in which they were never awarded a position in any seat posting? How can someone move to a seat which no vacancies are listed?

A pilot whose award/assignment is canceled ( as her's has been) may either remain in his current crew position (which she cannot since Subic is closing), or exercise his seniority for an award or a vacancy posting that occurred between the date his crew position was awarded and the date it was canceled.

Her "seniority" during 200703 would of allowed her to hold 43 of 46 30CH. Posting 200801 is not an option, too senior for her to hold. Posting 200802 has her holding 57 of 62 30HC with no 30HC vacancies listed in this posting. Therefore, I do not see how her seniority allows her to be awarded this position with out the "excess" of 13 pilots from Hong Kong to keep the total number at of 30HC seats at 49. Since she is 57 of 62 she would not be eligible to be awarded this seat.

So, that brings us to the rest of CHP 24 in the CBA.

"He shall be eligible to receive passover pay if:
a junior pilot is activated in a crew position pursuant to the same or any subsequent posting and the rate of pay for that crew position is higher than the rate of pay for the current crew position of the pilot whose award has been canceled;

A pilot junior to her is scheduled to complete training on 20SEP08. She is not scheduled to start training until 1 Nov 08. So I understand the pay issue, but not the ability of the company to place people in positions where there are no vacancies.

Which brings me to another point of the CBA that has not been discussed in some time.

The Company may cancel an award/assignment of a crew position in reverse seniority order provided it does so at least 30 days prior to the pilot's scheduled training date.

Are we talking about "relative seat seniority" or "total seniority" in the company? I contend section 24 of the CBA addresses total seniority and "reverse seniority order" starts at the back of the line and moves forward. Therefore, when the company cancelled the 757 to Memphis, everyone junior to the lowest seat in 200703 award should of lost their seat award due to "reverse seniority order." The Union should of addressed this issue at the beginning.

Back to my case study. She should not be awarded a seat to which her seniority does not allow her to hold. No one should be awarded a seat to which there is no vacancy or which will "cause a future excess" and all cancellations should be in "reverse seniority order" IAW the CBA.

If this is not the case, then I guess the company should just furlough off the back of the DC10. The plane is going away, we do not need the old guys causing more training cycles, and it seems the company is dealing with only "relative seat seniority" and our union is "doing the right thing." There is no way DW would allow this to occur yet, he has allowed the company not to cancel the seat awards to junior pilots awarded 30HC.

I think the best way for you to resolve your question is to call ALPA legal or your ACP on Monday. ALPA legal will be happy to help. It really boils down to giving the pilots with canceled awards in CDG the chance to bid as if CDG were never an option on 07-03 or 08-01, and you have pointed out that she could have held HKG on 07-03, that is the litmus test. In effect they are allowed to add in extra pilots based on the cancellation process versus the Excess bidding process.

Please let us know what you find out, I may be off base and I too am a huge proponent of making sure everything done with these bids is within the CBA and honors seniority.

Thanks for your attention to this matter as well ! We certainly need to have 4800 sets of eyes on the ball.

Ps
 

I am a friend of the pilot in my case study and I hope she gets all the passover pay our company will provide. My questions are directed more at our unions inability to "do the right thing" in all cases. Our union considered it the "right thing to do" (a line I believe was stolen by DW from a letter from a member asking him not to go against the crew force) when it chose to go against the majority of our membership. This action has caused our company to pay for at least two more training cycles for most of the pilots awarded seats since the Age 60 Rule has changed. Now I think they need to be fair across the board and not just to the most senior 150 in the company.

Many people lives changed when these bids were cancelled. Now I think our union needs to address CHP 24 definition of seniority prior to any pilots hitting the streets. I know that will be from the back to front of the seniority list, why not now?

Where is that written in our CBA? How is the company "allowed to add extra pilots on the cancellation vs excess?" I cannot find that provision in the CBA.

Our Union is allowing this to happen and DW is at the helm. We, the membership, should hold him more accountable. In the past, he has gone against us and I only wrote letters to my rep. Well, not anymore!

4. Cancellation of Awards
a. The Company may cancel an award/assignment of a crew
position in reverse seniority order provided it does so at
least 30 days prior to the pilot’s scheduled training date.
A pilot whose award/assignment is canceled may either
remain in his current crew position, or exercise his seniority
for an award or a vacancy posting that occurred between
the date his crew position was awarded and the date it was
canceled.

This is section I am referencing. The only question I would have is the way this section reads it could lead you to think the bid they were awarded CDG on does not count for "exercising" their seniority. Good question for the Legal Staff, but I would think it would only be fair to allow those CDG pilots a chance to take another seat they could have otherwise held on 07-03 or 08-01 in my opinion.

You are assuming that an "excess" is determined by the total openings on a previous posting. I contend, the company determines that somewhat arbitrary figure.

There were very junior folks awarded captain slots on the original HKG posting(perhaps because of the wonderful LOA... sorry, I couldn't resist). Understanding our CBA as it pertains to the various postings, excesses, base closures, "partial cancellations," age 60 change, etc., is a mess, to say the least.

Now the company faces a bit of a dilemma. If, in fact, the current situation allows numerous pilots to hold captain in HKG, due to their seniority to the current junior captain, and if the company determines 49 is the magical "excess" number, then quite a few pilots will be receiving passover pay. This passover will continue, in all likelihood, for quite some time[read 2 years ++(for you subic folks)], since most affected are much too junior for widebody captain domestically. Obviously the company doesn't want to pay that. Instead, they send many of these individuals notification not to keep HKG as their bid, if passover pay is their incentive, because they will go.

Will they send all 62 captains to HKG? What if more pilots put HKG captain as their choice(if, like myself they are elgible)? Could we end up with 75 captains? Does the pilot dare call their bluff? If so, be prepared for the consequences. Then again, there's still that contract/agreement that needs to be signed...hmmm :rolleyes: