I gotta disagree, and deadheading most certainly is a duty period. The link you provided drives home the point.

"However, any "deadheading" required by a carrier cannot be considered "local transportation" and therefore cannot be considered to be a part of a required rest period under the regulations."

Nowhere in there did it state deadheading (or any other company related work) is not duty.

The only exception is transportation which is "local in nature" - a co-terminal, or the van ride to the hotel, which is correct.

Regardless, I'm glad the NPRM clarifies this issue.

 

You're free to do that, but you're wrong.

No, it's not.

Yes it does--Question 82.
Look, I'm not trying to be a wise ass, but duty is defined as the time you show with the intention of flight, not anything else.

 

Question 82 deals deals with Supplemental rules.
Please refer to Questions 40 and 41. Its right there in black and white; deadheading or classroom is duty.

"Q-40. Can I deadhead on Day One and be scheduled for flight duties for the next six days?
A-40. No. The flight crewmember could not be assigned flight duties on the seventh day because the seven-day period does not contain 24 hours free of duty.
Q-41. Can I be assigned four days of training followed by three days of flight duties?
A-41. No. As in the above example, the seven-day period did not contain 24 hours free of duty."

 

Dude, supplemental doesn't matter and your examples are talking about needing rest. Classroom time and deadhead time are not rest, they are not duty either though.

 

[QUOTE=Buck92;957456]FQS aren't going anywhere. UPS will fight to their dying breath to keep them just as they are. I'll be absolutely astounded if they aren't in place, serving in their current role, 1 year/5 years/10 years from now. QUOTE]


Maybe we can't/ won't get rid of them. however, we can pursue language to make them less effective.

ie.. No MEF durring furlough, limit the size of the managers to a % of the IPA pilots, when MEF must be done a penalty is paid to the IPA.

We don't need to fight for the whole ball of wax.

IMHO

 

Good point.

 

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next couple of weeks. I hope that they will sign the cards, cause it will be the easy route for them and us and we can work better together in the future.

Having said that though, with all the information we have been compiling about how much revenue flying they have been doing in the past year while our guys are put out on the street and the legal precedence set years before, it will pretty easy to show the powers that be that those jobs are ours.

If we don't get the cards we will get those jobs and if they don't want to be part of our union and collective workforce by their own will, than we shouldn't want them by force. They will all be looking for employment soon that I am sure of. I hear FedEx and SWA are hiring. With UPS management stink on you, those jobs should be easy to land.

 

It's been too long, Shaggy. I wish you were right with your confident assertion above. What gives me doubts is that we are outgunned. We may well have supporting documentation and the facts on our side, but that may not matter. Our EB and most folks in our union think they know it all. JM actually thinks of himself on the same level as UPS Labor while negotiating our contract (just an example.) The few lawyers we have retained are laughing all the way to the bank, but they are no match for UPS Labor's in house and hired guns. The labor lawyers I've spoken to about our situation say it will be years before any resolution (my neighbor was a UPS hired lawyer who worked on the mech's contract.)

UPS will hold on to the end to these FQS guys. I'd rather see the IPA focus on getting the SCS gorilla in the cage.

 

Plan B = Places and NOT the Faces.

Be warned.

Tick Tock - Tick Tock.

 

Please don't encourage them. I am junior and would prefer plan B.