"O" and the hub-turn meeting
07-11-2008, 03:46 PM
#31
Slainge Var'
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Zeppelin Tail Gunner
Posts: 1,530
[quote=Albief15;423754]but you don't have a stronger "we are in this together" cheerleader than DW. quote]
YGTBSM! Sounds like something Jeffery Dahmer said to his roomate while sharpening his dinner knife. Exactly how many times does he have to stab us in the back before he becomes "what he is" and not our "cheerleader"?
YGTBSM! Sounds like something Jeffery Dahmer said to his roomate while sharpening his dinner knife. Exactly how many times does he have to stab us in the back before he becomes "what he is" and not our "cheerleader"?
07-11-2008, 04:14 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Originally Posted by Albief15
I know you must think hell is freezing over, but I have been very impressed with DW's committment to protect the contract and defacto the same junior guys O mentioned.
07-11-2008, 04:36 PM
#33
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Widebody
Posts: 63
Thanks Albie and Viperdriver for some news from the big toe, the brain trust, the grand pooba or the mans' shoulders whom the future of all western civilization rests upon.
Now on to some important items, are you gonna eat those potato chips?
BD
Now on to some important items, are you gonna eat those potato chips?
BD
07-11-2008, 04:53 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Originally Posted by pdo bump
very good news to those on the bottom of our seniority list.
i guess at least our chief pilot is looking out for them, dw sure isn't.
i guess at least our chief pilot is looking out for them, dw sure isn't.
It seems every pilot demographic has had a beef with DW. This time it's the very senior and guys trying to get their high 5. Most others wouldn't benefit from a reduction in force.
I do know DW has said he doesn't want a furlough. So I can only assume he is not open to any deal that would modify the our contractual language to allow one without the 48/60. For that I am thankful.
07-11-2008, 04:56 PM
#35
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by magic rat
Latest from FDX ALPA:
48 hour Minimum Bid Period Guarantee and Furloughs- There are rumors that the company will soon reduce Min Bid Period Guarantee to 48 hours on a 4 week month and 60 hours on a 5 week month and then furlough. The MEC has elements of a potential LOA in works that addresses manning mitigation options that could be taken without reducing MBPG’s, should management approach the union stating their intention to reduce MBPG’s, Options include reducing or eliminating various overtime flying, charters and several other provisions to minimize extra flying. This LOA could be employed if we learned of the company’s intent to reduce current MBPG’s below 68 hours/4 week month and 80 hours/5 week month. (Yes, any LOA would need to be ratified by the FedEx pilots). Additionally, the company has a lot of latitude between our current MBPG and 48hrs MBPG which would precede furloughs. The company could, for example, reduce MBPG to 66 hours for months, then if conditions warranted reduce again to, say, 64 hours and so forth.
Where are these rumors coming from...us?
48 hour Minimum Bid Period Guarantee and Furloughs- There are rumors that the company will soon reduce Min Bid Period Guarantee to 48 hours on a 4 week month and 60 hours on a 5 week month and then furlough. The MEC has elements of a potential LOA in works that addresses manning mitigation options that could be taken without reducing MBPG’s, should management approach the union stating their intention to reduce MBPG’s, Options include reducing or eliminating various overtime flying, charters and several other provisions to minimize extra flying. This LOA could be employed if we learned of the company’s intent to reduce current MBPG’s below 68 hours/4 week month and 80 hours/5 week month. (Yes, any LOA would need to be ratified by the FedEx pilots). Additionally, the company has a lot of latitude between our current MBPG and 48hrs MBPG which would precede furloughs. The company could, for example, reduce MBPG to 66 hours for months, then if conditions warranted reduce again to, say, 64 hours and so forth.
Where are these rumors coming from...us?
07-11-2008, 05:01 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
I don't know what the block 1 and block 2 reps are trying to say.
The company can't just lower BLGs to 66 or 64. If they could we would already be there. They must be talking about some alternative they are working on that isn't agreed to or in force yet.
What are these reps trying to accomplish by publishing such a statement?
The company can't just lower BLGs to 66 or 64. If they could we would already be there. They must be talking about some alternative they are working on that isn't agreed to or in force yet.
What are these reps trying to accomplish by publishing such a statement?
07-11-2008, 05:05 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 909
Originally Posted by Gunter
I don't know what the block 1 and block 2 reps are trying to say.
The company can't just lower BLGs to 66 or 64. If they could we would already be there. They must be talking about some alternative they are working on that isn't agreed to or in force yet.
What are these reps trying to accomplish by publishing such a statement?
The company can't just lower BLGs to 66 or 64. If they could we would already be there. They must be talking about some alternative they are working on that isn't agreed to or in force yet.
What are these reps trying to accomplish by publishing such a statement?
07-11-2008, 05:34 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: 57 Capt
Posts: 141
Originally Posted by Gunter
For all we know the company has approached DW about a furlough and he said no way. We are just hearing the public spin.
when was the last time this mec was willing to fight for anything? (except for an unwanted retro position on age 60)
07-11-2008, 06:23 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
MEC? No way.
My point is we really don't know what is happening behind closed doors. All we can really see is the end result. All else is speculation, conjecture or rhetoric.
But I do want to know how the Block 1 and 2 reps got a statement thru our ALPA lawyers (message lines run thru them first) that says the company can lower our BLGs to 64 anytime they want.
Then why are we "Buying Up" 727, MD11 and Airbus lines to 68 and 85?
Someone needs to send these guys an e-mail asking for explanation.
My point is we really don't know what is happening behind closed doors. All we can really see is the end result. All else is speculation, conjecture or rhetoric.
But I do want to know how the Block 1 and 2 reps got a statement thru our ALPA lawyers (message lines run thru them first) that says the company can lower our BLGs to 64 anytime they want.
Then why are we "Buying Up" 727, MD11 and Airbus lines to 68 and 85?
Someone needs to send these guys an e-mail asking for explanation.
07-11-2008, 06:32 PM
#40
Beverage Consultant
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Bartender & cabana boy
Posts: 167
Originally Posted by MaydayMark
I thought that was "flag carrier" regs? Are they the same thing?
Would it work if I said that you know what I mean?
Goodnight!
Beertini
