fdxflyer

Has anyone discussed the filing of a grievance over the excess with their reps? Obviously, there was a settlement agreement. But if the grievance covers anything not in the contract or settlement it should be fair game.

Specifically, I believe it is contrary to the term excess to place a position in excess with the expectation of growing the position through the excess process. While I believe the company had the right to grow the size of the 727 SO seat, I do not believe that anyone should have been able to leave that seat.

That is my take. What is yours? Albie? Surely this has been discussed.

Unknown Rider

Have you discussed it with your rep? How about trying that first instead of asking someone else to do it or expecting Albie to post a reply about it on a web forum.

fdxflyer

That is a wonderful answer. But, it also assumes something you don't know.

Albief15

I am simply not sure on all the legalese, but I am pretty darn sure the company can man the seats any darn way they please. They cannot man them out of seniority order or not iaw the CBA...but c'mon....do you think we can contractually require them to man a seat a certain way?

We can guarantee pay, days off, and some work and bidding rules. Manning the seats, however, isn't really a union job.

I asked about the "1" excess seat and was told it was legal. So--we get to sit here and deal with it. I wish I had better news.

The previous grievance was simply an inforcement of the exisiting CBA. I saw another thread where someone said the wording allowing an excess bid at an FDA was "added" or negotiated during the process. In fact--they have ALWAYS had the right to do that. It was simply printing the obvious in bold print and making what was in the contract already clear to everyone. Again--nothing "new" came out of the 08-01 grievance--it just enforced the current CBA.

MD11Fr8Dog

Which is.......?

koz2000

Just curious, who'd you ask if this was legal? Was it DT?

MalteseX

I don't think the issue that's causing such consternation among a lot of the membership is the company's "defining" a seat in excess with a "1". All they did is to say that the seat is filled with the numbers they want---and it prevents excess after excess and so on.... which is all legal (at least that's what I was told by my rep as well).

I think the issue is that the company called the 727 S/O seat in excess on the first excess bid, which closed merely a week ago----then all of a sudden, it's not in excess and more people go into the seat than the number that occupied it before the first iteration. THAT seems like favoritism---and finding loopholes or creating them to get a "political" result. THIS action is what I believe is the controversial part in talking with buds in the company. The first action --- calling the S/O seat in excess allowed the over 60 guys to get back to wide body captain, without having vacancies. The second action---calling the S/O seat as the desired seat to overman (three to four days later)---dumped all the most junior guys back into the seat.

And this second action is what is making many folks think the company is setting up a furlough (which many believe was the plan all along). Putting this together with all of the "official" words (that are all parsed)--- "While furlough is always possible in the future...." " While no furlough is planned..." "We are not planning to furlough at this time..." " We have no plans to furlough as a result of this excess" etc. By flushing and dumping all the most junior guys from "critical" seats to a VERY VERY overmanned 727 S/O seat---it appears they are setting it up to chop from the bottom. So I think guys are trying to seek help anyway they can to save their jobs.


BTW, thanks for all your communications. You keep many of us informed, much more so than before..... Thanks

RedeyeAV8r

Where does the contract restrict the company from posting an excess or limiting them from doing so. Where does it say the company must excess "X" number of seats (i.e no where does it say they can't excess only 1.)

If they don't show a seat in excess, than that seat (ANC CAPT is a good example) could become immediately be over manned by all the MEM CApts who are getting displaced there. By showing ANC CAP seat in excess by one, this allows the company to excess (or flush the jr folks) = to the number of pilots excessing in on top. Other wise they would have to have another excess Bid in ANC after this one closes. They are getting the bulk of the UGLY stuff all done on this Bid.
Lets hope it stops here, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

I agree this all sux, but it ain't rocket science why the company is doing it. But I sure don't see any Contractual language which prevents it. I would love it if someone could find it.
It also wouldn't surprise me after this excess closes that the company cancels many of the awards.

MD11Fr8Dog

But would it have really made a difference as to where we will be after this excess bid? Not much!

MD11Fr8Dog

I agree. I think if, when and how many would depend on when and how quickly the economy turns. They can drag this out with a long extended training letter or terminate it by cancelling bid awards.