That's some funny Sh**! I nearly spilled my coffee with that. Except when my wife is calling me Captain its not with a cup of coffee in her hand.;)

Yes you are right. The aborgation of seniority on any issue (FDA) bidding, PIC, etc. should be a concern to us all. Yes you are right.

wrong, the architect of our current CBA fought hard to put this policy into our CBA in the 2006 contract. It has been a problem since day one. The other items listed in this section of the CBA are the backbones of seniority and have not and will not change with the fix in the new TA. No abrogation, seniority applies in the big ticket items and always will. This was nothing more than an attempt to make a good deal even better.

You are a senior "dawg", you can bid before everyone else. So pick your poison, flying a trip or riding and consuming cocktails on a large portion of the trip. Also, why do you think the comapny will continue to use 2 captains on any flight? They only do it when they are short or in certain short term cases of a new route as required by the CBA.

4a2b,

What about the settling of this grievance without going to arbitration, which if I read it correctly, will allow scheduling to move a capt on his leg for a checkride to RF2 status. If they want the capt's leg for a checkride, they either need to bump him from his entire trip with pay, or find another flight to do the check.

I think grievances get settled all the time, well before a ruling or an appeal through the arbitration process. If you want an answer on this question I would call alpa. I am sure they will answer it for you. As for the training thing, I read the cba reference in the settlement and sure looks like that is already allowed?

You can argue all that you want about seniority and PIC. If your a junior captain you won't like the policy. If your a senior captain you will. My point is that it has always been the policy since we started flying 4 pilots in the MD-11. It is in the contract, it is in the FOM. I have been moved to relief captain many times in my career here to pour coffee for someone senior to me. I have never had a problem with it. I get paid the same and I don't have the responsibility. It is not personal. When I read these threads I get the impression that you all think that the senior captains on the property now have somehow changed the policy to our advantage. It has always been the policy. Period. You are can have your own opinion but not your own set of facts.
If we have contract language where seniority is the determining factor in selection from a list and you remove seniority as that determinate, that is an aborgation of seniority. Look it up. The change in CBA language aborgates seniority period. To say that I will only defend seniority if I agree with that particular policy is pretty lame.

Settlement 10-02 will allow the PIC to be bumped to rfo for check-rides. Up until now you were bumped with pay. The settlement agreement 10-02 is a bait and switch. There is nothing in this settlement other than to eliminate the activation ride that is to our advantage. This settlement incorporates the language of 25.U.3 in determination of PIC. We are all losing something here. Senior captain, or junior captain. Read the grievance that is in the first part of this thread. The union has given this away.

Here it is simply put. This is the Remedy language that ALPA stated in there written grievance (10-02) to the company. "In remedy of the Company's violation, the Company should cease violating the Agreement and desist from any further designation of PIC's that violate Section 22.B.2. " (Seniority)

How did ALPA arrive at this settlement language out of that grievance language. This settlement is a sham.

Again whether you agree with the policy or not you all should be concerned that they could make CBA language changes out of a grievance, especially if that change removes the basis of the grievance.

evance.

It is not a TRAINING thing. It is a checkride. The union is trying to allow the company to move the capt to rf2 to give a checkride. The union clearly thought that this was abrogation of our contract as stated in the grievance.

From the Grievance page:

10-02 Pilot In Command
Section 22.B.2 requires that the designation of Pilot-in-Command (PIC)/Captain of Record on
double crewed flight segments is determined by system seniority. The Association filed
grievance 10-02 on behalf of a pilot who was scheduled for a trip as a Relief Flight Officer, after
the Company had another pilot as the PIC, apparently believing that Section 25.U.3. permitted
the Company to override the seniority protection in Section 22.B.2. The Association demands
compliance with 22.B.2 on applicable flight segments.

Obviously, they have decided to give this protection in our contract away.

training generally refers to all aspects of required events. oe, line checks etc. i do not know if the union felt there was not enough of a case to press through to a ruling/appeal or not. once again rather than wonder (i personally dont care, i like the change) i would call grievance and ask. go to the source is what i would do rather than guess at the reasons.:)

I do not care what the reason is. The bottom line is that it is another giveback. If you are willing to have your leg interrupted every time that the rf2 needs a checkride and have the flt that you bid to be the capt on changed to being rf2, instead of being bumped off of the trip with pay, then I guess you should vote for this TA and its give backs.

Roger, wilco , over and out

I went to the source. Had several discussions with the "union". I feel that both the Negotiating and Grievance Committees misled me. They have tried to explain why this capitulation to the company is not a capitulation. They have tried to explain why this give back is not a give back. I was there, have been there through all of this. There explanations are just not credible. The only thing that they didn't do was try and sell me swamp land in Florida. I plan on talking to them again next week. I guess they will try that then.