|
FDX 777 pay?
They paying you guys in IOUs? :D
|
Originally Posted by bleedairpacks
(Post 784385)
They paying you guys in IOUs? :D
|
It obviously is just another widebody. If rumors of replacing the MD10 domestic with 777 lights, then it should just pay normal widebody pay. If they want to fly ULR work rules with it, then the company should be required to pay 380 rates for those routes. But we are kidding ourselves if we think that we will get 380 pay to fly it MEM to SEA, ORD, LAX etc.......
|
Huh?
----------------- |
Waitaminute!!!
I thought it was gonna pay the 380 rate:confused: That's what Bob said:confused::confused:
fbh |
It's not gonna affect me, so if there is a vote, I'll just vote for the first rate that's proposed. They can make up the difference by picking up open time.:rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by The Walrus
(Post 784414)
It obviously is just another widebody. If rumors of replacing the MD10 domestic with 777 lights, then it should just pay normal widebody pay. If they want to fly ULR work rules with it, then the company should be required to pay 380 rates for those routes. But we are kidding ourselves if we think that we will get 380 pay to fly it MEM to SEA, ORD, LAX etc.......
Subjectivity and rationalization have no place in determining something when a contract provision covers such a circumstance. Just saying! |
Just saying, that door shut over a year ago. I do not think living in the past is healthy or constructive.
|
Originally Posted by The Walrus
(Post 784649)
Just saying, that door shut over a year ago. I do not think living in the past is healthy or constructive.
|
Originally Posted by The Walrus
(Post 784649)
Just saying, that door shut over a year ago. I do not think living in the past is healthy or constructive.
|
Originally Posted by ictflyer23
(Post 784659)
Wide-body pay -- period.......
|
The future is the 777! We could see up to 100 777s by 2020 when other carriers start dumping them for the 787s.
For us to just roll over for widebody pay because 5% of our workforce was greedy and bid the 777 with no pay rate is insane. I think we should do everything we can for 380 payrates now and just make sure we don't give the greedy bastards retro pay when we do sign the contract. That way, they are not being rewarded for being dumb asses and bidding the aircraft without a pay rate! Seriously...we need this rate now or we won't see it for a long time!!! |
Originally Posted by PastV1
(Post 784939)
And why would you say that? It's much more efficient than the MD's plus carries more. So why would someone not want a higher pay rate for any aircraft if they have a chance to get it?
|
Is this thread about all the draft and high line averages in the 777? That's what those that bid it say.
They didn't care about the pay rate with all the bennies they knew were in store for them. Probably still don't care. No retro. Not with this pilot group/good ole' boy network. |
Big payrate increases across the board. The only exception is the 777.......it should wait 24 months to receive its raise in order to fund the raises on the other aircraft. Anyone who bids an airplane without a payrate obviously doesn't care what the rate is.
|
I'm with Dracma on this.
|
I'm a little confused. When we brought on the Airbus, and the MD11 and the MD10, why didn't we hear all of this about the people that bid it? Was there already a separate pay rate established by contract for these aircraft, or was it just assumed that they were wide body playing aircraft?
|
I think it maybe harder to get 380 rates 2 years from now. I'd rather make sure we get them, even if it rewards the guys who bid it, then not get them at all and 3-4 years from now we are still flying at WB rates.
|
Originally Posted by PastV1
(Post 784939)
And why would you say that? It's much more efficient than the MD's plus carries more. So why would someone not want a higher pay rate for any aircraft if they have a chance to get it?
|
Originally Posted by The Walrus
(Post 785013)
I'm a little confused. When we brought on the Airbus, and the MD11 and the MD10, why didn't we hear all of this about the people that bid it? Was there already a separate pay rate established by contract for these aircraft, or was it just assumed that they were wide body playing aircraft?
How much negotiating capital did we use up negotiating a payrate for the A380? What could we have gotten 'extra' in our contract if we just rolled over and said that the A380 could be paid at widebody rates? So now we gave up something for 4 pages in the contract that we can just throw out. Then the company brings on the 777 and pays it at WB rates, and the only leverage we have to get the ULR payrates we negotiated for is for people to stand firm and not bid the 777... but they did, so essentially gave the company something for nothing. |
If nobody had bid it, it would have been filled in reverse seniority order, and would still be flying, just by the most junior at the company.
|
So all youse guys saying we need a triple 7 payrate; tell me why all your arguments wouldn't apply equally to the 757? It will be the ACFT more fedex pilots will log more hours in for the foreseeable future. IMHO.
|
If nobody had bid it, it would have been filled in reverse seniority order, and would still be flying, just by the most junior at the company. Somebody tell us how United parked theirs until they got a rate. That's my favorite. |
Originally Posted by Huck
(Post 785058)
Don't confuse 'em. They're on a roll....
Somebody tell us how United parked theirs until they got a rate. That's my favorite. So who should give up what to get the 777 a better payrate? I vote the bus guys. |
Originally Posted by The Walrus
(Post 785054)
If nobody had bid it, it would have been filled in reverse seniority order, and would still be flying, just by the most junior at the company.
I'm a firm believer that we should get 380 rates for the aircraft that replaced it. We have already spent the negotiating capital for it. We have the leverage, in that they can't fly it ULR unless we agree. If the arbitrator comes back with "wide body" rate...We say fine...Pays like an Md-11?...Then, fly it like an Md-11. NO ULR!!! It should pay A380. If the company wants to fly it domestic...They can work on that payrate in contract 2010. Many airlines pay a different rate for the same aircraft's different model. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here. |
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
(Post 785057)
So all youse guys saying we need a triple 7 payrate; tell me why all your arguments wouldn't apply equally to the 757? It will be the ACFT more fedex pilots will log more hours in for the foreseeable future. IMHO.
United had language in their contract that said "NO new Airframe can be put into service unless there is a negotiated payrate." If you read our Section 26K it says otherwise. I wish it didn't but it does. The 757 and 737 were mentioned in this contract as paying naroow body rates if they were put into service. The 777 isn't mentioned in our current contract so Section 26K applies. According to the union and in speaking with a Block rep one night during a hub turn. We are already into the arbitration for the 777. The arbitration will determine wheter or not the 777 is a Wide body or some new category if so a payrate will be decided by the arbitrator. Furthermore, according to the contract, if the arbitrator rules the 777 is a new category and a higher hourly rate applies it will be done so retroactively. Sorry to enter facts into an APC discussion. |
Originally Posted by RedeyeAV8r
(Post 785063)
The Difference is and Unfortunately it is contractual.
United had language in their contract that said "NO new Airframe can be put into service unless there is a negotiated payrate." If you read our Section 26K it says otherwise. I wish it didn't but it does. The 757 and 737 were mentioned in this contract as paying naroow body rates if they were put into service. The 777 isn't mentioned in our current contract so Section 26K applies. According to the union and in speaking with a Block rep one night during a hub turn. We are already into the arbitration for the 777. The arbitration will determine wheter or not the 777 is a Wide body or some new category if so a payrate will be decided by the arbitrator. Furthermore, according to the contract, if the arbitrator rules the 777 is a new category and a higher hourly rate applies it will be done so retroactively. Sorry to enter facts into an APC discussion. |
Originally Posted by Busboy
(Post 785062)
This is correct. Our contract is much different than Delta, United, etc. when it comes to new aircraft.
I'm a firm believer that we should get 380 rates for the aircraft that replaced it. We have already spent the negotiating capital for it. We have the leverage, in that they can't fly it ULR unless we agree. If the arbitrator comes back with "wide body" rate...We say fine...Pays like an Md-11?...Then, fly it like an Md-11. NO ULR!!! It should pay A380. If the company wants to fly it domestic...They can work on that payrate in contract 2010. Many airlines pay a different rate for the same aircraft's different model. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here.
Originally Posted by RedeyeAV8r
(Post 785063)
The Difference is and Unfortunately it is contractual.
United had language in their contract that said "NO new Airframe can be put into service unless there is a negotiated payrate." If you read our Section 26K it says otherwise. I wish it didn't but it does. The 757 and 737 were mentioned in this contract as paying naroow body rates if they were put into service. The 777 isn't mentioned in our current contract so Section 26K applies. According to the union and in speaking with a Block rep one night during a hub turn. We are already into the arbitration for the 777. The arbitration will determine wheter or not the 777 is a Wide body or some new category if so a payrate will be decided by the arbitrator. Furthermore, according to the contract, if the arbitrator rules the 777 is a new category and a higher hourly rate applies it will be done so retroactively. Sorry to enter facts into an APC discussion. |
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
(Post 785066)
And I hope we win the arbitration. If we lose I am willing to give up nothing to get us a new payrate for the 777. How about you?
|
Originally Posted by Busboy
(Post 785081)
I am willing to give up something!!! I am willing to give up the A-380 ULR workrules to get a new payrate for the 777(the airplane that replaced it).
Actually wouldnt it be better to hold off on ULR rules until contract 2010 or 2011 or 2012 is resolved? What do you call it; leverage? |
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
(Post 785066)
And I hope we win the arbitration. If we lose I am willing to give up nothing to get us a new payrate for the 777. How about you?
Concur If we lose the arbitration it ends there.............that is until the Company wants to fly the 777 under ULR rules. Then we negotiate 777 ULR work rules. Til then it is in the arbitrators hands. |
Originally Posted by RedeyeAV8r
(Post 785113)
Concur If we lose the arbitration it ends there.............that is until the Company wants to fly the 777 under ULR rules. Then we negotiate 777 ULR work rules.
Til then it is in the arbitrators hands. fbh |
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
(Post 785094)
No problem, I guess it depends on whether you are talking contract 2006 or 2010. If the arbitrator rules the 777 is a widebody I guess we could trade the ulr rules for a 777 payrate. Personally I think trading it for a better 757 payrate or a fix to accepted fares or fresher coffee in the AOC would do more for the "crewforce" than rewarding those who bid it without a payrate would.
Actually wouldnt it be better to hold off on ULR rules until contract 2010 or 2011 or 2012 is resolved? What do you call it; leverage? |
Where X is a variable between 0-9
Originally Posted by fdx727pilot
(Post 785281)
You have to remember that both sides must agree to a new contract. If we don't address ULR rules, IMHO, the company will not sign anything. We'll end up flying under the current rules until hell freezes over or the FAA forces work rule changes. You could be talking Contract 2015 or worse.
I am confused, are you saying ULR rules are leverage? If yes I agree. As such, I would rather use the (potential) leverage to get contract 201X rather than fix contract 2006. And as I have said, my priorities for contract 201X do not include a 777 payrate. YMMV. |
Originally Posted by ictflyer23
(Post 785020)
It should never have been bid without a pay rate -- greedy people hurting themselves.
|
Originally Posted by The Walrus
(Post 785054)
If nobody had bid it, it would have been filled in reverse seniority order, and would still be flying, just by the most junior at the company.
|
I wish I had gone to medical school, but that ship has sailed also.
|
Obamacare will suck the fun out of being a doctor soon enough. Doctors are now posting on their chat rooms how they wish they had become Trash Hauling Pilots.
|
Originally Posted by Sluggo_63
(Post 785792)
I understand that. We should have forced their hand, then. The company went nuts over putting new-hires in a MD-11 in ANC. We should have seen if they had the guts to staff the left and right seat of the 777 with the most junior at the company. It would have been a big Mexican standoff and I think we would have prevailed.
My apologies to all our Mexican friends watching on this board. Sluggo...direct to sensitivity training for you! WM |
Originally Posted by Wildmanny
(Post 785813)
My apologies to all our Mexican friends watching on this board. Sluggo...direct to sensitivity training for you!
WM |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:27 PM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands