FDX - For All The Slow Learners
10-06-2008, 10:24 PM
#11
Ok, No more sleeping Dog
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD-11, F/O
Posts: 889
Reality Check
Lets look at this from a demonstrated and historical perspective. We are scheduled to receive 4 777's between now and mid 2010. That is most likely to be the scope of the "announced" upcoming 777 bid. So.....4 777's at 20 crews (40) pilots/AC gives 160 crew members. Given that at least the 1st 18 mos. of revenue flying will include max. training bumps (Instr Quals, IOE, etc.) the 1st bid is likely to go very senior. Accounting for the max days off/Month the system form will provide (hard time @ 16hrs/leg = 2 trips/Mo. to get BLG) the most senior ND's will bid this. I say let them, and when it comes time for the "qualified crew force" to to fly revenue trips........ooops, 2 crew (4) ND's cannot fly Int'l!!!!!!!! Oh by the way, by this time our best effort during arbitration will have long been handed down (win or lose). Seems like a win/win for us. They can't meet the schedule due to aging 777 manning, we have a definitive pay rate (like it or not), and the leverage of "rescuing" an un-mannable AC for revenue operation. As always it boils down to an informed, disciplined bid by the rest of us. Comprende? ............P.S. Fr8H you like being the naysayer......always have.
10-06-2008, 10:37 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,336
sure woulda been nice
Sure woulda been nice to get those A-380 rates locked in when the aircraft switch came up instead of crossing fingers and assuming they would apply. (Think Cowardly Lion from the wizard of Oz....."I don't believe in spooks, I don't believe in spooks") Seems like we ratified 2 (count 'em 2) LOA's since they anounced the switch and we didn't lock it in.
I like how the union talks about it's "Business Approach", but in reality I feel like I am dealing with sub-prime mortgage writer. Seems the other side is used to us putting up with some pretty childish stances on their part.......especially since we ate the LOA's.
Good work by FE......I think he is doing the best he can under the circumstances.
I chew my kids out for renegotiating a deal based on semantics....."Dad, you said I 'should'.....not that I had to"....."Depends on what the definition of the word "is" is. "B-777 is the replacement for the A-380.......but not for pay". I hope they never get to see these arguments as examples.
I like how the union talks about it's "Business Approach", but in reality I feel like I am dealing with sub-prime mortgage writer. Seems the other side is used to us putting up with some pretty childish stances on their part.......especially since we ate the LOA's.
Good work by FE......I think he is doing the best he can under the circumstances.
I chew my kids out for renegotiating a deal based on semantics....."Dad, you said I 'should'.....not that I had to"....."Depends on what the definition of the word "is" is. "B-777 is the replacement for the A-380.......but not for pay". I hope they never get to see these arguments as examples.
10-06-2008, 11:59 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD11 FO, ANC
Posts: 1,098
Originally Posted by Laughing_Jakal
Sure woulda been nice to get those A-380 rates locked in when the aircraft switch came up instead of crossing fingers and assuming they would apply. (Think Cowardly Lion from the wizard of Oz....."I don't believe in spooks, I don't believe in spooks") Seems like we ratified 2 (count 'em 2) LOA's since they anounced the switch and we didn't lock it in.
I like how the union talks about it's "Business Approach", but in reality I feel like I am dealing with sub-prime mortgage writer. Seems the other side is used to us putting up with some pretty childish stances on their part.......especially since we ate the LOA's.
Good work by FE......I think he is doing the best he can under the circumstances.
I chew my kids out for renegotiating a deal based on semantics....."Dad, you said I 'should'.....not that I had to"....."Depends on what the definition of the word "is" is. "B-777 is the replacement for the A-380.......but not for pay". I hope they never get to see these arguments as examples.
I like how the union talks about it's "Business Approach", but in reality I feel like I am dealing with sub-prime mortgage writer. Seems the other side is used to us putting up with some pretty childish stances on their part.......especially since we ate the LOA's.
Good work by FE......I think he is doing the best he can under the circumstances.
I chew my kids out for renegotiating a deal based on semantics....."Dad, you said I 'should'.....not that I had to"....."Depends on what the definition of the word "is" is. "B-777 is the replacement for the A-380.......but not for pay". I hope they never get to see these arguments as examples.
Since our contract negotiations and contract ratification, the Company has been systematically establishing a record of bad faith negotiating - all take and no give.
Meanwhile - in every case (including the contract ratification) our union and its membership has systematically demonstrated a willingess to "work with the company in a businesslike manner" - IN ALL AREAS - biting the bullet in many cases in the "spirit of cooperation"
Now - the company's chickens are about to come home to roost.
The arbitrator (System Board) may not even rule in our favor on the 777 Pay Rates.
All the 777 slots may be bid up by greedy ND's or other senior hogs to the trough.
BUT........
(Key Point Coming Next)
ANY WORK RULES REGARDING THE COMPANY USING THE 777 AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A REGULAR WIDEBODY MUST BE NEGOTIATED AND RATIFIED BY THE MEMBERSHIP AS CHANGES TO THE CBA. (all the contract language as it's written now specifically states "A380" and does not mention "777")
I'll admit, the time has come to stop giving the company "the benefit of the doubt".
By taking it up the orifice on just about everything since the contract (and maybe even including the contract) under the guise of the "businesslike relationship" - our union has positioned themselves brilliantly to win on the 777 work rules.
We've been MORE than accomodating over the last 3 years. It's our time to take now.
So, let the ND Bubbas bid it - the only thing different they'll get out of it is a 777 type rating and to fly a "brand new" airplane - big woop!
We don't have to ratify any changes to the CBA without a HUGE incentive ($$$)
just a thought.
10-07-2008, 12:48 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 777 FO
Posts: 931
Originally Posted by Cliffy170
1. Cliffy will bid 777 CAP/MEM but will probably not be able to hold it. So sue me. I will stand up to public pillory. Make an example of me like the MEM DP flyers. Encourage peer pressure but realize the attempt is futile if it falls on deaf ears (like the MEM DP flyers).
2. Rates of pay have already been established for 757, 737, 727, A-300, DC-10, MD-11 and A-380. According to 26.K of CBA: ALPO, and "The Company" hash out the new a/c rate of pay. If after 30 days, that doesn't work - or ALPO and "The Company" don't agree it goes to a system board of adjustment (2 for us, 2 for them and 1 neutral).
3. Arbitrators agree on new a/c rate of pay. 777 either gets Wide-body pay or A-380 pay, or gets its own pay scale. I would say it is a 2/3 chance that the 777 pay will be higher than pure Wide-body pay. Isn't that fair? It's what we voted on.
4. Anyone who has been flying the 777 prior to the new rate of pay, gets the new rate of pay retroactively. Hmmmmmm, retro pay. . . never mind, let's just call it a nice bonus.
5. A nice bonus for just signing up (bidding up) flying and waiting for the machine to grind out new pay rate. A nice bonus for ALPO dues collectors, as well.
6. Too bad the contract didn't include language for 777 rate of pay, too bad the contract didn't include language for CDG or HKG domiciles, either. Too bad. Both were really covered in the CBA - but only in non-specific terms. And, guess what? We voted on the CBA and accepted it. We got, VEBA and GRID and 5 TZD and Scooby snacks. Now ALPO leadership is covering the inadequacy, by advocating gridlock. Well, we know they can't come out and directly say don't bid this or that, but we should all be able to read between the lines.
"... satisfied with over 16 hour legs at domestic A300 pay."
7. Who wants to fly the 777 at domestic Airbus pay? I don't want to pontificate but, does domestic Airbus pay take into account: Asia, S. America, Europe, Middle East, N. America including HI and AK, Twelve to Thirteen hour legs, RFO's, 2 RFO's, and three motors? To compare domestic Airbus pay to international MD-11 pay is equally as absurd (but we all agree Wide-body is Wide-body)
8. Cliffy is done venting, no one of real import really reads these forums anyway. Sarcasm intended.
9. Cliffy will be a part of the problem (JL) for a long time. And, I'll stop referring to myself in third-person from now on.
2. Rates of pay have already been established for 757, 737, 727, A-300, DC-10, MD-11 and A-380. According to 26.K of CBA: ALPO, and "The Company" hash out the new a/c rate of pay. If after 30 days, that doesn't work - or ALPO and "The Company" don't agree it goes to a system board of adjustment (2 for us, 2 for them and 1 neutral).
3. Arbitrators agree on new a/c rate of pay. 777 either gets Wide-body pay or A-380 pay, or gets its own pay scale. I would say it is a 2/3 chance that the 777 pay will be higher than pure Wide-body pay. Isn't that fair? It's what we voted on.
4. Anyone who has been flying the 777 prior to the new rate of pay, gets the new rate of pay retroactively. Hmmmmmm, retro pay. . . never mind, let's just call it a nice bonus.
5. A nice bonus for just signing up (bidding up) flying and waiting for the machine to grind out new pay rate. A nice bonus for ALPO dues collectors, as well.
6. Too bad the contract didn't include language for 777 rate of pay, too bad the contract didn't include language for CDG or HKG domiciles, either. Too bad. Both were really covered in the CBA - but only in non-specific terms. And, guess what? We voted on the CBA and accepted it. We got, VEBA and GRID and 5 TZD and Scooby snacks. Now ALPO leadership is covering the inadequacy, by advocating gridlock. Well, we know they can't come out and directly say don't bid this or that, but we should all be able to read between the lines.
"... satisfied with over 16 hour legs at domestic A300 pay."
7. Who wants to fly the 777 at domestic Airbus pay? I don't want to pontificate but, does domestic Airbus pay take into account: Asia, S. America, Europe, Middle East, N. America including HI and AK, Twelve to Thirteen hour legs, RFO's, 2 RFO's, and three motors? To compare domestic Airbus pay to international MD-11 pay is equally as absurd (but we all agree Wide-body is Wide-body)
8. Cliffy is done venting, no one of real import really reads these forums anyway. Sarcasm intended.
9. Cliffy will be a part of the problem (JL) for a long time. And, I'll stop referring to myself in third-person from now on.
10-07-2008, 02:07 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: Row well and live...
Posts: 494
Originally Posted by MEMFO4Ever
Sure glad my Captain's are saving fuel. 
Gee, I bet that really adds up at 3 bucks a gallon on a 243,000 lb. tank of gas...
10-07-2008, 02:48 AM
#19
"blue collar thug"!
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
A realist, yes. One who figures that a lot of the pilots will have a "realist" attitude like yourself, and will therefore think narrowly, which in turn screws everything up.
To bad the realists around here dont instead think that "hey, this isnt right.....gotta go with my conscience, and if everyone did the same, we would be in charge, regardless of who has the gold". And that is a fact! We would be in charge. If everyone would take it off of their standing bid, the Company might not think that we are a group of spineless realist.
But I realize that we are talking about FedEx pilots (collectively, that is).
To bad the realists around here dont instead think that "hey, this isnt right.....gotta go with my conscience, and if everyone did the same, we would be in charge, regardless of who has the gold". And that is a fact! We would be in charge. If everyone would take it off of their standing bid, the Company might not think that we are a group of spineless realist.
But I realize that we are talking about FedEx pilots (collectively, that is).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
