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.

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.

25 BB. Appendix A

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.

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

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

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

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

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

C'MON, seriously?!?!

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

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

Only if we haven't been kicked out of CAN by then because of all the Taxi violations. :D:eek::rolleyes:

Not that they are not going to attempt that, but this is different than canceling a vacancy posting, the pilots who have been excessed no longer hold that seat. The only way I see for the Company to bring more pilots back to the ANC seats is through a vacancy bid and then it is up to the seniority system to determine who holds the seat. When they canceled CDG, those pilots all had the rights to their old seats because they still could actually hold them.

I think what you are saying is the same thing, but just a stop gap measure?

the company did put a RFO on one of those pairings--saw it in Open Time while I was attempting schedule enhancement (recently).

I bet it would only take them 37 bids/20 failed bids and eighteen months of furlough threats to get the right seat filled this time. Wheeeeee!!!!

(cue the clown music Manny!!)

Uh, you misspelled MD-10! ;)

I don't know, there aren't a lot of DC-10 spare parts floating arpund out there
;)
fbh

New hires to Hong Kong. What will we call them, "Yangguizi Nuggets".

MD-11's is the word I got. Of course we still might be getting 747's and Paris is going to open anytime now.

Yeah they did adjust the Dec pairing - it was an earlier pairing that got revised. Seems they often add the RFO to the flight a week or so after the original CA/FO pairing is built. That was the case on this one although like I said it was a revision - not a single pairing to handle it. The other one in November flew w/o an RFO - it is listed as a Charter so maybe that's the difference? SIG is looking into it.