FDX - For All The Slow Learners
#22
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.
#23
I say let all NDs bid it. Gets them off my jet!
#24
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.
Business
#25
We were hood-winked again
Two thoughts ...
1. Cliffy: If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. You sir, are part of the problem!
and ...
2. I agree, we probably missed our opportunity to lock in ULR pay rates when we didn't include them in the LOA. The company seems to have REALLY wanted that LOA! Shame on our negotiating committee for not seeing this problem coming in advance and not using the LOA (that the MEC crammed down our throats btw) to OUR advantage.
Mark
1. Cliffy: If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. You sir, are part of the problem!
and ...
2. I agree, we probably missed our opportunity to lock in ULR pay rates when we didn't include them in the LOA. The company seems to have REALLY wanted that LOA! Shame on our negotiating committee for not seeing this problem coming in advance and not using the LOA (that the MEC crammed down our throats btw) to OUR advantage.
Mark
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 167
#28
I don't work for FedEx, however if your contract is anything like the one at my company, if there insufficient bidders for any vacancy bid, then the company may assign the bid to the most junior pilot that meets the minimum FAA requirements for the bid. If you have the same type of clause in your contract, then your most junior F/O could be assigned an involuntary 777 Cap bid.
Joe
Joe
#29
#30
EXACTLY!! Time to put these guys names (and should have done the same with DP flyers) up on the bulletin boards. The union needs to grow a spine. This "identification" was suggested during the CBA negotiations and we were told "that would slpit the pilot group". No SH!T!!! WE are ALREADY split with these guys acting on their own. I say it's time to ID them and the crewforce start shunning them.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post