UPS - FQS Time is running out
#11
Not so, deadheading is not duty and it's not rest. Duty is defined as the time you show for a trip (intending to fly, not sort magazines) until you're relased into rest. I think that's probably why the NPRM has language specifically directed to fix this "duty loophole"
Guide to Flight Time Limitations and Rest Requirements
Guide to Flight Time Limitations and Rest Requirements
"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.
#12
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.
and deadheading most certainly is a duty period.
Nowhere in there did it state deadheading (or any other company related work) is not duty.
Q-82. The air carrier deadheads a crew (two pilots and a flight engineer) from Salt Lake City to Honolulu. Upon arrival in Honolulu, the crew is assigned to fly the return trip. Can the crew accept this trip?
A-82. Yes. The duty time for the crew does not commence until the crew reports for duty for the purpose of flight. In this case that reporting occurs at Honolulu.
A-82. Yes. The duty time for the crew does not commence until the crew reports for duty for the purpose of flight. In this case that reporting occurs at Honolulu.
#13
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."
#14
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."
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."
#15
[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
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
#17
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: On Food Stamps
Posts: 937
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.
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.
#18
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.
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.
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post