I disagree.

Nothing in the current CBA allows an excessed pilot to be awarded an FDA slot that would create an excess. In fact, it's specifically prohibited. While I believe gypsy correctly explained in another post that this only applies to the 07-03 and 08-01 cancelled award victims, it DOES lift a CBA prohibition by allowing an excess situation to be created by an excessed pilot.

Where am I going wrong here?

 

Nope. You are very correct. It wouldn't ... in fact they could have done it "backwards". Not call the 727 S/O seat an excess on the first bid, but all the other seats excessed.... it would have still flushed everyone to the S/O seat. Then after the nearly 500 or so were there, they could have called the S/O seat now in excess by XXX people. This would have allowed the senior guys back into their rightful places----with the only difference being an additional excess bid being required to clean up that flush.

---

 

No matter how much lipstick you put on this pig.....DW's support/advocacy/cheerleading to get retroactivity written into the legislaion ultimately enhanced the QOL for a select few and put a large number of junior pilots at additional risk of furlough. Had the retroactivity verbiage NOT been added, those 150 60+ pilots would be in the backseat where they deserve to be and the junor guys would retain their previous seats.
Had the retroactivity not been added to the legislation, those over 60 would either be in the back seat or retiring....not bumping junior guys back to SO.
Ultimately, I hold DW personallly responsible for 100-200 junior guys being at risk of being back on the street...while his buddies grin all the way to the window.
For that I say......until DW is gone......FDX ALPA does NOT speak for me.

 

I don't know if the contract says anything about it. But we do have a history about setting precedents (see age 60 going to the back seat with out a bid, accepted fares being lower than scheduled fares, etc.. ) Someone (Albie) asked a question if it was legal. Someone (I assume DT) said yes it was. my question was who said it was legal. Questions of legality often are not defined by anything contractual until a judge rules on them. See wire-tapping, guantanamo, etc... Where does the contract say we don't avhe a bump and flush system as defined by other carriers? (I don't know if the contract addresses it but both PC and DW seem to think we don't have it). By creating this excess that creates a bump and flush, can it be legally challenged especially since one seat that was in excess (72S/O) last excess bid is not in excess this excess bid. It would be worth a grievance.

Honestly it doesn't really bother me one way or the other. I'm staying in my seat but I know from past life what's it's like to be faced with a major pay cut.

 

The only seat the was not in excess was 27SM. So they can dump every body they want into that seat by the contract. Does it stink, esp since that seat was in excess 2 weeks ago? yes. Was it a complete hookup for near deads, yes. But it was legal by our contract. The company controls what is in excess with no input from the union.

I'm pretty new here, 4 yrs. But I will never take the Unions word (i.e. road shows or emails) verbatim again.

 

Albie...this IS the overwheming majority opinion! It's time for the MEC to step up to the plate and tell DW to step aside. There simply isn't any more damage he can do to our unity, morale, and cohesion, his job is complete. I know he is only staying for his 98 hours a month but you have the power to force him OUT! He has created a new verb, in the future, any time a FedEx ALPA president that sticks a knife in the back of the members, we'll say, "we've been Webb'd". "Do the right thing", force this pariah out.

 

Albie...I think you know I am a big supporter of virtually all of your posts; however, I think when our MEC went to National and had "retroactivity" added for our Over 60 SOs the union was clearly making policy which directly affected "manning the seats".

I think there are guys that just won't "get over it" until our union admits this publicly.

Being in denial doesn't work on any level

 

I think the bulk of the UGLY stuff actually occurred on the FIRST Excess bid, when the 727 SO seat was put into play....what you are seeing now are the full effects of that bid.

 

Second! I am close to sending my pin, lanyard and card to John Prater and tell him this is because of Dave Webb. I know they won't care, since they will still get my $$.

 

Who knows? JP might care - after all he's presided over the loss of USAir. You'd think he might be slightly concerned with any more union division at a major carrier like FX. Regardless, it does sound cathartic...