Airline Pilot Central Forums - Fdx X-pairing Violations

Page 1 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Cargo (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/cargo/)

- - Fdx X-pairing Violations (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/cargo/46150-fdx-x-pairing-violations.html)

Tuck	12-01-2009 11:20 AM

Fdx X-pairing Violations

Does anyone notice the recent X-pairings that seem to violate the RFO rule for blocks > 7:35? I've written to the X-pairing new email at ALPA but no response so maybe I'm incorrect? I thought it was a hard parameter in the CBA?

Check out 2272/2DEC MEM 11 and 2136/13NOV MEM 11 as 2 examples.

PurpleTail

12-01-2009 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuck (Post 719563)

I am interestd in whatever you found out and I agree, it looks like a RFO would be in the best interest of safety due to duty times and foreign theater flying.

Born2AV8

12-01-2009 01:54 PM

25 BB. Appendix A

Appendix A.
Initial SIG Parameters and Starting Values Hard Parameters.
5. An international duty period shall not be constructed in excess of 7+35 block hours without at least three airmen on board (e.g., DC-10 standard crew, MD-11 with RFO).

CBA says Bid Pack Construction. Not sure if it makes any difference if build as a X-pairing after the fact.

Adlerdriver

12-01-2009 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Born2AV8 (Post 719641)

CBA says Bid Pack Construction. Not sure if it makes any difference if build as a X-pairing after the fact.

I'm getting to the point now where I'd almost be surprised if the company didn't try to slip through every hole we left in the contract.

The presence of an RFO on this type of pairing is clearly a safety issue, which is why that parameter was put in the CBA in the first place.

However, WHEN the pairing was created in the bid pack construction process is obviously much more of an overriding issue than the safe operation of the pairing :rolleyes:. Unbelievable.

KnightFlyer

12-01-2009 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuck (Post 719563)

Are you looking at block time or duty time on the pairing?

MD11Fr8Dog

12-01-2009 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnightFlyer (Post 719721)

Are you looking at block time or duty time on the pairing?

7+42 Block/11+45 Duty twice in 2272!

KnightFlyer

12-01-2009 05:32 PM

Ok I see it now (typed in the wrong trip). Maybe our EVP who's flying the trip will look into it.

PurpleTail

12-04-2009 05:26 AM

Another XTRA Pairing gem that just popped up for Dec...

Check out MEM MD Trip 2368 08DEC, 92:29 CH!!!

C'MON, seriously?!?!

MaydayMark

12-04-2009 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PurpleTail (Post 720903)

Another XTRA Pairing gem that just popped up for Dec...

Check out MEM MD Trip 2368 08DEC, 92:29 CH!!!

Looks like another MEM pairing to cover our ANC "overmanning" problem?

Wildmanny

12-04-2009 07:20 AM

If only the company knew WHY they are undermanned now in Anchorage...it wouldn't be because they have all their FOs in training? Oops.

Here's a solution--cancel all pending training and remove those FOs already in training who are still current in the MD, bring them back to Anchorage, rebid the system after the new year break, then see what to do.

Why not just push the training letters out 3 months or so, get through peak, and then take a look, rebid assuming Flag Ops, retirements, more 777 and 757 guys, and the Hong Kong MD-11 base? Did I just say that out loud? Yeah yeah, I have a friend who knows this guy, etc. Except the guy who told my guy was JL and it was later mentioned again by another LCA who said the same thing. Bid for HKG 11 by March. You heard it here first.

WM

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:05 PM.

Page 1 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page