Originally Posted by KDENPilot

Now yours is a statement I can respect, even if I don't agree with all of it. I don't feel I've been "bent over," that much, so we'll agree to disagree on that one. As far as other employee groups, I'm well aware of the stories of the anti-pilot rallies back when you were negotiating contract 1 (I wasn't here yet.) Not something I would have been happy to see, but at the same time, if they felt their livelihood was being threatened by the actions of a small group of employees (relative to the overall number of employees,) I can also see where they were coming from.

Maybe no one is advocating belittling other groups, but I've certainly read plenty of negative comments on here about the people in crew scheduling (they're actually pretty good folks, for the most part, and probably have one of the most thankless jobs in the company,) GOC (they're all licensed dispatchers, have a training and standards program and once we go flag/domestic will by FAR have joint operational control of each flight along with the captain...just like at all the other major airlines,) company management (like many of us would have the first clue how to profitably run a multi-billion dollar corporation,) and hub/ramp workers (yeah, some of them are of questionable intelligence, but they're not that bad.) To read some of the comments on here, you would get the impression that some on this board are of the opinion that the crew force is the only group of employees that makes the operation go, we're more important than any other group and every decision the company makes should be in our best interest. Since I have friends, or at least acquaintences, in all of those areas, I get a little irritated when some pompous alpha hotel who knows nothing about what those folks really do goes spouting off on here about how GOC doesn't know what they're doing, or management is screwing him, or how CRS is conspiring to hide open time in order to serve some nefarious purpose. (I have it on good authority, from a person who would know and I trust, that they're not.)

Originally Posted by FDXLAG

I would expect an arrbitrator to say FDX you caused the shortage you fix it. But the point is we will never know; we reached a settlement agreement. You do not think they are violating the intent of the contract?

Originally Posted by Busboy

I do not think they are violating the intent of Sec. 25.M.3.v. I think their violation of 4A2b, has forced them to apply Sec. 25.M.3.v.

Utilizing R24s more, due to 4A2b, is no more illegal than lowering everyone's B-fund contributions. Maybe we should grieve that?

Originally Posted by FDXLAG

Well once again we will have to disagree. I think reducing the amount of reserves you have and then discovering you are short of reserves is definitely similar to 4A2b, which last time I checked we are grieving. Read the R-24 section; are you saying it is not the intent of the contract that R-24 be served away from base if the pilot chooses.

Originally Posted by FDXLAG

Have they lowered your B-Fund contributions below the contract minimums? If so grieve it.

Originally Posted by Busboy

It's not similar to 4A2b...It's because of 4A2b! Sec. 25.M.3.v. is in the contract to specifically allow the company to use R24s to cover for a shortage of non R24s. There is no language that restricts it's use to non 4A2b scenarios. Should there be? In hindsight, yes!

Originally Posted by Busboy

No. But, they're putting less into my B-fund because of 4A2b. Just like they are using R24s more, due to 4A2b. Not because they are violating the reserve section of the contract.

Who'd of thought that these 3 sentences would have such a profound effect on the rest of our contract?

4.A.2.b. The minimum bid period guarantee shall be reduced to a minimum of 48/60 CH before any pilot is furloughed. At least a full bid period must follow the announcement of this action. This provision shall only be used to prevent or delay a furlough.

Hopefully, the arbitrator can see through the company's smoke and mirrors, to see that it's not being implemented they way it was meant to be.

Originally Posted by Gunter

Let me guess KDEN -

You got hired right around the postal contract and are now a mid level MD11 FO doing one departure lines. How much reserve have you done? Maybe 2 or 3 months in your 8 or so years here?

Yeah, life is good for you. Reserve is for losers and this excess stuff doesn't affect you a bit. How many folks have you signed up for your pull up the ladder campaign?

Originally Posted by pipe

I'm not sure where anyone spoke ill of CRS. We're all intelligent enough to understand that they are simply implementing the management interpretation of the contract. In my opinion the present interpretation is being pushed to the limits of a reasonable person's judgment. The reasonable standard is, by the way, the legal standard for things that are not spelled out in black and white.

I'm glad you like your job. I like my job most of the time. I used to like it a lot more. It was, in my opinion, a much better place to work 24 months ago. This is a little suspect since we are working under the same contract we were under then.

If you are a "company man", you should be upset that the contract was not being exploited properly before. A shareholder might say, "If you could have saved 100 million a year in personnel costs under this contract, why weren't you doing it?"

I really don't understand why you feel the need to make all of this stuff personal. I disagree with you on almost everything across the board. It's not personal in any way. Feel free to disagree with me all you want, but I'd sure appreciate it if you'd lose some of the aggression and insulting tone.

If I were in your position I might not be as displeased with the state of things. If you were in mine, your views might be different. But I'm not, and you're not -- so try to exercise a little civility.........PLEASE.

PIPE