Fdx X-pairing Violations
12-01-2009 | 11:20 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 12
From: MD11 FO
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.
Check out 2272/2DEC MEM 11 and 2136/13NOV MEM 11 as 2 examples.
12-01-2009 | 11:40 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 521
Likes: 0
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.
Check out 2272/2DEC MEM 11 and 2136/13NOV MEM 11 as 2 examples.
12-01-2009 | 01:54 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
From: B777 FO
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.
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.
12-01-2009 | 03:30 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,064
Likes: 37
From: 767 Captain
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
. Unbelievable.
12-01-2009 | 03:59 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,433
Likes: 0
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.
Check out 2272/2DEC MEM 11 and 2136/13NOV MEM 11 as 2 examples.
12-04-2009 | 05:31 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,304
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 Captain
12-04-2009 | 07:20 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 533
Likes: 1
From: Unknown Rider
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
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
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
