Search

Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines

MEF and JA2 at UPS

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-23-2010 | 09:59 AM
  #71  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
From: looking for a bridge to sleep under in ANC
Default

Originally Posted by Gunter
Saying it's not effective then pointing out how it forces the schedulers to become creative, read sweat out the schedule, and the number of secondary lines are reduced proves it's having an effect. Every little bit of difficulty added makes management more uneasy about squeezing further.

For the more senior naysayers like Roberto, the issue IS about money. The money. The ban forces the company to build all schedules with higher credit. With the ban gone they can be built lower and the senior OT flyers get to bank the extra pay.

Saying it's not effective then saying


The question is which side does the IPA leadership support.
What you are missing here is the only thing "experienced pilots" like Roberto are referring to in the ineffectiveness of an open time ban is the money not going into his pocket. Period. The rest is hot air trying to justify a totally selfish action while acting in direct violation of what the union has called for. The open time ban is what it is. Perfect - no. Effective - depends on what you consider effective. They seem to be making all the flights just fine. Does it create a need for more pilots on property? You would have a hard time arguing against that one..........although I am sure some "experienced pilot" will lecture me about how it isn't.
Reply
Old 07-23-2010 | 10:41 AM
  #72  
b2pilot186's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Roberto
B2, I am one who believes the company has all the information and the personnel involved to manage their plans extremely well. Even though the IPA collects data to help us in our decisions, I don't expect it compares favorably with the data and manpower that UPS has available to them. And we can only make calculated guesses at their plans, while they have the advantage of devising them and adjusting them as necessary. I have never been one to doubt the company's ability to stay well ahead of events. Just sayin'.
Well on behalf of the company then, I accept your surrender. Care to take a swing on the way down to the floor? I give up...Good luck with that attitude.

B2P
Reply
Old 07-23-2010 | 10:46 AM
  #73  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by freightretriever
What you are missing here is the only thing "experienced pilots" like Roberto are referring to in the ineffectiveness of an open time ban is the money not going into his pocket. Period. The rest is hot air trying to justify a totally selfish action while acting in direct violation of what the union has called for. The open time ban is what it is. Perfect - no. Effective - depends on what you consider effective. They seem to be making all the flights just fine. Does it create a need for more pilots on property? You would have a hard time arguing against that one..........although I am sure some "experienced pilot" will lecture me about how it isn't.
As an "experienced " pilot who speaks with "experienced" pilots who support the OT/JA position of the IPA for a variety of reasons I find these comments irriatating and counter productive. In my view we have more pilots in the middle of the list who are headed for financial issues as a result of the OT/JA position of the IPA. More "Experienced " pilots post here than you may know.
I don't agree with Roberto on the effectiveness, he appears to only look at one area, there are many measures of effectiveness.
Reply
Old 07-23-2010 | 11:16 AM
  #74  
say that again's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 Captain
Default

Originally Posted by 757upspilot
As an "experienced " pilot who speaks with "experienced" pilots who support the OT/JA position of the IPA for a variety of reasons I find these comments irriatating and counter productive.
Well said. Chalk me up as another "experienced" pilot who supports the OT/JA ban buts finds the frequent comments irritating and counter productive.
Reply
Old 07-23-2010 | 11:45 AM
  #75  
CactusCrew's Avatar
Tri-tanic operator
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
From: Doggie
Default

Originally Posted by say that again
Well said. Chalk me up as another "experienced" pilot who supports the OT/JA ban buts finds the frequent comments irritating and counter productive.
Sorry if some of the junior "irritate". But in case you didn't notice, many times the iritating responses are provoked by statements about the effectiveness of the OT/JA ban from that character that hasn't agreed with them for over 15 years. Without his type of rhetoric, many times this would not come up at all. Maybe he enjoys the provocation as a means to end the ban he doesn't agree with.

Irritating is the 92 that have been gone for 2 months. They know the meaning of irritation. Those of us still here barely have a bur under our saddle. Not even a flesh wound ...

Reply
Old 07-23-2010 | 12:00 PM
  #76  
Roberto's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
From: 757/767
Default

Originally Posted by Naven
... the OT ban saves UPS money in the short run but it requires them to keep about 200 extra pilots on the list. That is why we are doing OT ban.
I saw that statement by Jim M, and I always pay close attention to what he says. However, IMO UPS would never reduce the manning so that they were dependent on OT/JA to make service. Just the ability to decline OT/JA is enough to save the extra 200 positions. A ban does not need to be actually implemented.
Reply
Old 07-23-2010 | 04:19 PM
  #77  
brownie's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,128
Likes: 0
From: 757/767
Default

Originally Posted by Roberto
I saw that statement by Jim M, and I always pay close attention to what he says. However, IMO UPS would never reduce the manning so that they were dependent on OT/JA to make service. Just the ability to decline OT/JA is enough to save the extra 200 positions. A ban does not need to be actually implemented.
1. You pay attention, really, Then you should of paid attention to the EB when they asked not to pick up O/T
2. You're correct ups has no need to reduce the manning to be dependent on JA/OT as long as they have guys like you working
3. The ability to decline JA/OT, Now thats funny coming from you since we all know you don't have that ability
4. You are 100% correct the ban doesn't need to be implemented atleast in your world
Reply
Old 07-23-2010 | 06:41 PM
  #78  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
From: looking for a bridge to sleep under in ANC
Default

Originally Posted by 757upspilot
As an "experienced " pilot who speaks with "experienced" pilots who support the OT/JA position of the IPA for a variety of reasons I find these comments irriatating and counter productive.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh please forgive me for irritating you. Really please. Seriously, get over yourself for once. The comment wasn't directed at "your crowd". It was aimed at one particularly selfish individual.

Originally Posted by 757upspilot

In my view we have more pilots in the middle of the list who are headed for financial issues as a result of the OT/JA position of the IPA.
So let me make sure I understand your position. You are hinting at yanking the open time ban to help middle of the list individuals living beyond their means on a 155K+ a year job. All the while we have guys on the streets just trying to survive. Oh wait, wait - they were downgraded. If you are stupid enough to run out and spend every dime of a captain paycheck right after an upgrade......... well, sorry you deserve whatever mess you got yourself into. I was downgraded to unemployment and there is no financial mess here. It's called planning ahead and living below your means.
Reply
Old 07-23-2010 | 06:56 PM
  #79  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by freightretriever
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh please forgive me for irritating you. Really please. Seriously, get over yourself for once. The comment wasn't directed at "your crowd". It was aimed at one particularly selfish individual.



So let me make sure I understand your position. You are hinting at yanking the open time ban to help middle of the list individuals living beyond their means on a 155K+ a year job. All the while we have guys on the streets just trying to survive. Oh wait, wait - they were downgraded. If you are stupid enough to run out and spend every dime of a captain paycheck right after an upgrade......... well, sorry you deserve whatever mess you got yourself into. I was downgraded to unemployment and there is no financial mess here. It's called planning ahead and living below your means.
Counter productive and immature . You seem to enjoy trying to **** people off that are helping you. None of the IPA pilots are responsible for the layoff attacking them will do nothing that is positive.
Reply
Old 07-23-2010 | 07:02 PM
  #80  
Freightpuppy's Avatar
Freightmama!
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,880
Likes: 0
From: 757/767 FO
Default

Originally Posted by Slice
Bob,
It's really simple. The union instituted the ban via the language provided for it in the CBA. By nearly all accounts it's being respected by the membership. You can claim all you want that it's ineffective. The line has been drawn and you chose to cross it. If you're not with us, you're against us. Being in a union means you should take the good with the bad. If we all look out for number one only, it defeats the purpose. I've got the guard to fall back on so I'll fair better than most on the chopping block and much less emotional than most of my fellow Spartans. However, it's still a dick move what you're doing no matter how you try and justify it.
I agree 100%. Whether it's effective or not, it's the point of it that is the most important IMHO.
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices