FDX R24 assignment?
07-29-2008 | 07:28 PM
#11
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Thanks for all the feeback and advice. I was aware that they knew I had seen the trip....just wasn't sure if it was legal. Also, didn't fall under 25.M.3.a.iii.
Called the union and they said don't know. Then I called scheds, she looked at it and immediately apologized, removed me from trip, admitting she dropped the ball and should have called me.
In summary, when on R24 and not under 25.M.3.a.iii, the requirement for notification is a phone call at least 24 hours out, or pilot actually seeing the VIPS notice at least 24 hours out.
Called the union and they said don't know. Then I called scheds, she looked at it and immediately apologized, removed me from trip, admitting she dropped the ball and should have called me.
In summary, when on R24 and not under 25.M.3.a.iii, the requirement for notification is a phone call at least 24 hours out, or pilot actually seeing the VIPS notice at least 24 hours out.
07-30-2008 | 05:29 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
07-30-2008 | 06:42 AM
#14
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
07-30-2008 | 06:57 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
From: Drinking from the fire hose
07-30-2008 | 07:38 AM
#16
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
I guess you must already work there as you seem to think this answer is O.K. and have heartburn that others are not happy with contract enforcement. We all don't have to start working at the union (the USUAL answer when someone at the union doesn't like what a member says) because we think the services are substandard. We PAY D.T. and all the other lawyers to provide this service and now we have to work there to get the right answers??? If that's the case lets save money by firing D.T. and all the lawyers and just put crewmembers in their place.
Seems a lot of people on here are quite quick to biotch about an issue when they don't get an answer that they like or that stumps someone else. Everyone here might possibly have something to offer, even you Micro. In fact, I think a lot of your answers are usually spot on. Don't waste all of your talent on here, maybe your assistance and clear headed thinking could be used there.
As for putting crewmembers in as the Enforcement gurus, I recall that was how it was during the FPA days, and they did a great job in protecting our contract, didn't they????
07-30-2008 | 10:31 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
From: MD11 FO, ANC
perhaps this individual could elaborate on exactly what the conversation with the union was (ie. who he actually talked to, what he asked, what they actually told him, what his reply was to that.....etc.)
THEN if the union guy needs to be hung out to dry.....so be it....
dealing with minimal facts never really does anything except fuel the fire of those who already want to grind that axe a little more.
so...cvilltn....can we get the rest of the story?
THEN if the union guy needs to be hung out to dry.....so be it....
dealing with minimal facts never really does anything except fuel the fire of those who already want to grind that axe a little more.
so...cvilltn....can we get the rest of the story?
07-30-2008 | 10:38 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
From: MD11 FO, ANC
how can someone be unbiased and at the same time be an advocate?
doesn't being someone's advocate make you biased towards them and their position/situation?
if I was spending money to retain legal counsel, I would hope that they WOULD be biased in my favor......but that's just me.
not to mention......that's just what we need - 4500 individuals with legal counsel on retainer looking out for 4500 individuals' vastly differing wants/needs/desires
vs. a unified group bargaining COLLECTIVELY.
but, hey.....as long as I get mine.....right?
doesn't being someone's advocate make you biased towards them and their position/situation?
if I was spending money to retain legal counsel, I would hope that they WOULD be biased in my favor......but that's just me.
not to mention......that's just what we need - 4500 individuals with legal counsel on retainer looking out for 4500 individuals' vastly differing wants/needs/desires
vs. a unified group bargaining COLLECTIVELY.
but, hey.....as long as I get mine.....right?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
