Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Cargo (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/cargo/)
-   -   FDX TA-Issues surrounding grievance 10-02 (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/cargo/57664-fdx-ta-issues-surrounding-grievance-10-02-a.html)

Underdog 03-09-2011 06:28 PM

FDX TA-Issues surrounding grievance 10-02
 
A fellow pilot filed grievance 10-02, which was subsequently incorporated into the current TA up for passage. I didn't realize the significance of the grievance until I read the following letter and the grievance itself. Due to its length and to preclude me from entering my personal thoughts I have pasted it in its entirety for you to read. I apologize for its length. What say you?



To:

MEC: Scott Stratton, Thomas Manning, Sean McDonald,
Local Council 7: Jack Anzur, Brad Mahoney, Lloyd Ballard
Negotiating Committee: John Gustafson, Rick Irgens, Mike Williams
Grievance Committee: Coy Briant
FedEx Pilots Via Email and Internet

Subject: Settlement Agreement 10-02

Dear Captain Stratton, Alpa Officers, Lec Reps, Committee Chairman and FedEx Pilots;

After review of Administrative Grievance No. 10-02, it is impossible to understand how the Settlement Agreement in determination of PIC, on augmented crews in any way reflects the intent or content of the grievance or contract. Nor does it serve the rank and file pilot group. We have a seniority-based system. This is an abrogation of our seniority rights. This settlement specifically degrades seniority without any visible form of quid pro quo or other gains, and changes contract language. The contract language was fought hard and won in the passing of our last contract.

It is apparent from the language of this grievance that you cannot arrive at this settlement based on the structure of the grievance. The contract language is clear, seniority prevails, and the settlement offered removes the basis for this grievance by abrogating seniority.

The grievance itself was not included in the TA presentation. If it had, the degradation and attack on our seniority would be obvious, as well as the lack of merit in this settlement (or capitulation).

How did this grievance with seniority at its core, end up outside the Grievance Committee and on the desk of the Negotiating Committee? Let’s be clear! This is more than a grievance settlement. This is a change in contract language. The change by the Negotiating Committee is specific in its removal of seniority from contract language when two Captains fly together on a double augmented crew. One of the primary responsibilities of the Negotiating Committee is to protect seniority and the seniority rights of its member pilots. Seniority should not be given away to further some other agenda.

This grievance itself was about insuring that the Company follows the negotiated provisions of the contract. It provided a remedy, by compensating those individuals, which were aggrieved. It should not have been a capitulation to the company's position with some new arbitrary way to determine the PIC. We might expect that from an arbitrator, but not from our Negotiating Committee. This grievance should not have resulted in changes and removal of contract language, especially language that abrogates seniority.

Any Pilot that reads this should be appalled at any attempt by our union to do anything that degrades our seniority or our seniority system, even if the administration of a seniority issue is a complex matter. Removal of seniority in determining the PIC, on a double augmented crew, by this union opens the door to other attacks on seniority and our contract.

No one should be confused by the settlement language, which will now allow the company to bump the PIC for a check ride on a double augmented crew. That does not mean that the PIC is going to be bumped from the trip and stay home. It means per Section 25.U.3 that the PIC can be bumped into the RFO position. This has been what the Company has wanted all along, understandably, and it is what the Company did to me, which was the basis for grievance 10-02. It was what this grievance was about, "the protection of seniority", and this Settlement Agreement is a complete capitulation to the Company’s position period. No seniority, no training bump, no additional future compensation. Furthermore, the Captain that thought he was going to be PIC with the new language, "STANDARD CREW PAIRING", can now be bumped to RFO. How is that in our best interest?

Compensation for the aggrieved allows in my case 14 hours of make up at 150%. We traded seniority for my ability to go work on my days off for an extra 7 hours of pay. That is an expensive 7 hours for this pilot group.

As the sole named aggrieved individual in this grievance, with the sole flight leg referenced where I was to be the PIC, I feel compelled to address this matter to you.

I recently completed telephone conversations with ALPA over the last week about this Grievance and Settlement. In these conversations the representative from the Negotiating Committee was adamant that the grievance settlement about determination of the PIC for double augmented crews was proper because this grievance was not based on seniority. The grievance was about training, training bumps, and the administration of line checks. The representative referenced 25.U.3 using this as the basis of the grievance. Section 25.U.3 has always been the Company's position, not ALPA's. My complaint to ALPA was about violation of seniority on double augmented crews where I was removed as Captain with my status changed to RFO to facilitate a check ride. It was then explained that the grievance filed (10-02) was about two other Captains in addition to myself with seniority as only a minor factor as the other Captains status was changed unrelated to seniority.

If you read the grievance that clearly is not the case. The grievance is about only one pilot, one flight, and deals with only one issue, Seniority, Section 22.B.2.

The language ALPA used in this Grievance 10-02 was for the Company to "cease violating the Agreement and desist from any further designation of PIC's that violate Section 22.B.2 (Seniority)".

How was this Settlement Agreement arrived at out of that grievance language?

It has been the policy of FedEx since the inception of double augmented crews to use seniority in determining the PIC when two captains were present. This policy originated early in the MD-11 and predates both contracts. Several years ago, under our current contract, the Company tried to change determination of PIC. Their intentions were made widely known by Jack Lewis as System Chief Pilot. You might remember Jack’s email to the crew-force, "you can fly, or you can eat caviar and sip champagne". ALPA then vigorously defended this seniority issue against the Company's desire to change it.

I feel that both the Negotiating and Grievance Committees have misled me. I have been misled about the nature of this grievance, its purpose, and the nature of the settlement. What I have been told by the negotiating committee is contrary to what I understand about this issue from our current contract and from previous contract negotiations.

It was stated to me, without reservation, that if the TA fails the Settlement Agreement of Administrative Grievance 10-02 will be referred back to the Grievance Committee for implementation. Why?


Here is Administrative Grievance No. 10-02.


May 18,201



Re: Administrative Grievance No.1 0-02 Pilot in Command


Dear Captain Cassel:

Pursuant to the Agreement, this grievance is filed regarding the Company's violation of Section 22.B.2.

Captain Brad Phillips was scheduled for Trip 3014 MEM 77 03APRI O. On the trip, Captain Phillips was scheduled as a Relief Flight Officer. 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. Such was not the case on Trip 3014. Instead, on Flight 98 HKG-MEM 07APR10, the Company had (Captains name redacted) as the PIC, apparently believing that Section 25.U.3. permitted the Company to override the seniority protection in Section 22.B.2.

In remedy of the Company's violation, the Company should cease violating the Agreement and desist from any further designation of PICs that violate Section 22.B.2. Captain Phillips and similarly situated pilots should be paid a +50% premium for any trip in which they were not designated as the proper PIC on a particular f1ight segment.

Discovery Requests

Pursuant to Section 20.C. of the Agreement, the following documentary information is sought:

1. Trip History screens for Trip 3014, including earlier and later revisions, whether those revisions were a different trip number or not.

2. Trip History screens for all the pilots on Flight 98 HKG-MEM 07APR I 0, including earlier and later revisions, whether those revisions were a different trip number or not.

3. The voice recording when Captain Phillips notified (ACP name redacted) of the issue by telephone on April 2, 2010.

4. Communications (including emails and voice recordings) by Company employees, excluding those protected by attorney-client privilege, regarding the flight and/or who was PIC on that Fight before or after Captain Phillips notified (ACP name redacted) of the issue by telephone on April 2, 2010.

Please send a copy of all hearing notices, decisions, and discovery responses in this case to the undersigned and the FedEx MEC Representation Department at 1770 Kirby Parkway, Suite 300, Memphis, TN 38138.


(Coy Briant Signature)


First Officer Coy Briant
MEC Grievance Committee Chairman

cc:

Captain Scott Stratton, MEC Chairman
Terrence P. McTigue Jr., MEC Coordinator/Sr. Contract Administrator
John Maxwell, Managing Director, Labor Relations Law
William W. McDonald, Managing Director, Contract Administration



The following chronology is what led to my call to ALPA and request for their intervention on the issue of PIC.

On April 2, 2010 I reviewed the trip pairings in VIPS. There were notes from the IOE scheduler that the other captain listed on the complementary pairing was to receive an Activation Check on FDX 98 Hong Kong MEM.

Since the other pilot was listed as Captain and junior to myself I called the scheduler to discuss the issue of PIC with double augmented crews as stated in the FOM. He responded that this was his directive and that if I had an issue with it to contact my ACP.

I contacted my ACP and explained the issue to him. I explained that for this flight with this crew that both the CBA and the FOM were clear. The CBA clearly stated that seniority would be the determining factor for the PIC with a double augmented crew and the FOM reaffirmed the same with the only exceptions being if an LCA was conducting IOE. This was not an LCA IOE flight. It was my position that we should not be placed in a situation where other crewmembers or myself would be required to violate the FOM (2.39 Captain of Record, PIC) or to have to act contrary to the CBA (Section 22.B.2).

I explained, that we could make the change in PIC, if both captains were in agreement to make the change, which I would agree to if asked, or to use the provision that allows the Duty Officer to amend or waive any non-regulatory policy or procedure contained in the FOM (FOM 2.123 Duty Officer Authorization).

This was not the case, and I was not going to be bumped. The decision was then made from the ACP to remove me without pay from this trip and threaten me with a 19.(e) Administrative Hearing. I strongly objected and after further discussions with the ACP and ALPA I was returned to my amended pairing as an RFO with the revision clearly removing me as a Captain.

The follow up from ALPA was to file this grievance on my behalf in the form of Administrative Grievance No.10-02. The only issue raised in 10-02 is the contract language of Section 22.B.2 where seniority is the determining factor in determining the PIC where two Captains are on a double augmented crew. The only flight named in the Grievance is Flight 98 HKG-MEM 07APR10, which is the flight discussed above. The only pilot named is Captain Brad Phillips.

It is unfathomable and unconscionable that the settlement agreement proffered by FedEx ALPA is to remove the seniority language of 22.B.2 in determining the PIC and instead uses the company's preferences, and allows a PIC change to RFO for check rides.

Whether you agree with this contract language or not is unimportant. What is important is the protection of our seniority and seniority rights, and seniority system.

Supporting this TA with this specific Settlement Agreement, which degrades seniority, is shortsighted and if passed will endorse the ideology that the union can abrogate our seniority at their convenience or whim. They can do so at the direction of the MEC without polling or an informed input of the pilot group, and sends the additional message that this pilot group doesn't care about seniority, and that the membership indorses such changes.

It is clear that after the filing of this grievance, our union has decided to no longer protect our seniority rights and is willing to change contract language to prove it. That ALPA is willing to capitulate to the company's position if it is self-serving to the MEC, and have allowed a new type of bump without compensation. This is a complete capitulation on all points.


Captain Brad Phillips



Again, I have posted this because I didn't realize any ramifications of grievance 10-02, specifically, as it pertained to this TA. I certainly haven't heard any dialogue on the matter. The individual who filed the grievance apparently hadn't received any notification regarding his grievance until after the proposed TA was released. I feel it warrants discussion.

4A2B 03-09-2011 06:38 PM

The following is the view from the Block 5 rep on this topic: from his letter


Administrative Grievance 10-02 (Pilot In Command on Augmented Crews): Settlement Agreement

Wrapped together with the TA’d CBA sections, the MOUs, and the LOAs are two grievance settlements. The first, Administrative Grievance 10-02, deals with the designation of PIC when two captains happen to be crewed together, and for some reason, the Captain captain with the highest system seniority is not the pilot in command. Although the affected pilots suffered no economic harm, they will receive an economic reward in the form of hours credited to their compensatory makeup banks, which allows them to pick a trip and receive compensation at 150 percent of the normal pay rate. The method agreed to for determining PIC is essentially the same as that which is published in the latest version of our Flight Operations Manual (FOM).

Underdog 03-09-2011 07:18 PM


Originally Posted by 4A2B (Post 961290)
The following is the view from the Block 5 rep on this topic: from his letter


Administrative Grievance 10-02 (Pilot In Command on Augmented Crews): Settlement Agreement

Wrapped together with the TA’d CBA sections, the MOUs, and the LOAs are two grievance settlements. The first, Administrative Grievance 10-02, deals with the designation of PIC when two captains happen to be crewed together, and for some reason, the Captain captain with the highest system seniority is not the pilot in command. Although the affected pilots suffered no economic harm, they will receive an economic reward in the form of hours credited to their compensatory makeup banks, which allows them to pick a trip and receive compensation at 150 percent of the normal pay rate. The method agreed to for determining PIC is essentially the same as that which is published in the latest version of our Flight Operations Manual (FOM).


You're right, the current FOM does state that. It appears that was changed in the recent change to the FOM. Which begs the question, how can the company put something into the FOM which directly contradicts our CBA, if it is not mandated by the FAA/FAR's, etc.? Let them wait for changes with the NPRM as we're willing to do for the complete TA.

The economic rewards you speak of require the affected pilot to fly on their days off. I feel extra compensation should be automatic. Better yet, forego the extra compensation and simply remove the pilot, with pay, from the trip as it currently is done. Why are we giving something up for what appears a windfall for the company? That being flying extra on our days off, albeit for 150%.

My biggest concern seems to be the apparent degradation of seniority. Our CBA is full of loopholes. Now we seem to be creating another. This could have subsequent implications. I certainly hope the NC and the MEC aren't facilitating the company in this degradation of our seniority.

thebigdawg 03-09-2011 09:17 PM

The Status 5 Rep is incorrect when he says "The method agreed to for determining PIC (in the settlement) is essentially the same as that which is published in the latest version of our Flight Operations Manual (FOM)." That is not true. What the FOM states now is for "Double augmented flight crews. The PIC will be the senior Captain". That is also what the contract says. This is miss-information being put out by the MEC and LEC's to get this TA passed. It is very hard to argue with miss information. ALPA in this settlement has changed the contract language to match the FOM. It is a capitulation on the part of ALPA to the company's position for settlement agreement 10-02.

TheBaron 03-09-2011 09:20 PM


Originally Posted by Underdog (Post 961321)
You're right, the current FOM does state that. It appears that was changed in the recent change to the FOM. Which begs the question, how can the company put something into the FOM which directly contradicts our CBA, if it is not mandated by the FAA/FAR's, etc.? Let them wait for changes with the NPRM as we're willing to do for the complete TA.

The economic rewards you speak of require the affected pilot to fly on their days off. I feel extra compensation should be automatic. Better yet, forego the extra compensation and simply remove the pilot, with pay, from the trip as it currently is done. Why are we giving something up for what appears a windfall for the company? That being flying extra on our days off, albeit for 150%.

My biggest concern seems to be the apparent degradation of seniority. Our CBA is full of loopholes. Now we seem to be creating another. This could have subsequent implications. I certainly hope the NC and the MEC aren't facilitating the company in this degradation of our seniority.

Seems to me they have finally fixed the problem satisfactorily...as they have done with the latest FOM revision. If the senior Captain wishes to fly the trip as PIC, he can bid the line that contains the PIC pairing. I always viewed it as an unjust manipulation of the seniority system when a Captain was removed as PIC from a trip he bid for and was awarded so some Captain as RFO could DH in 1st class to Paris and then "steal" the leg/landing back to Memphis. If he wanted the leg he should have bid the trip. This may not be the example that launched the grievance...but it fixes it once and for all...hopefully. Bid what you want to fly and your seniority will hold.

thebigdawg 03-09-2011 09:29 PM

There is no such thing as a PIC pairing.

R1200RT 03-09-2011 09:53 PM

Well, now I have a good reason to vote YES! on the TA. Bid it if you want to fly it, or serve coffee. This was always a scam for the privileged few!

TheBaron 03-09-2011 09:57 PM


Originally Posted by thebigdawg (Post 961382)
There is no such thing as a PIC pairing.

Sure there is. It's the one that lists a Captain and an F/O. The other one lists and RFO. I realize the 777 is a different animal and has pairings that list a single Captain...usually #30xx lines I think. This was been a problem long before there were 777's on property. One that has been exploited by the senior of the senior.

thebigdawg 03-09-2011 10:04 PM

Thats why its called a seniority system.

FXDX 03-09-2011 10:41 PM

Oh, this was a 777 Captain?

Next.

frozenboxhauler 03-09-2011 11:20 PM


Originally Posted by FXDX (Post 961404)
Oh, this was a 777 Captain?

Next.

The senior Captain of the two should get A380 pay;)
fbh

FoxHunter 03-10-2011 12:12 AM

When FedEx first started flying double crews KIX-MEM the Captain that had FDX18 on his trip was PIC, the Captain with FDX7018 was the Relief Captain. On one of these trips the PIC was junior. When the crew was alerted they were informed that there would be a jumpseater. Actually a FAA Maint. Inspector. The senior Captain had a real problem with this. There was not enough room, the cockpit was too crowded blah, blah. We had another flight that also went to MEM via ANC a few hours later. The inspector agreed to take the later flight. All was fine until the inspector's boss found out about it. The two Captains were called in to explain why the FAA inspector was bumped. The senior guy, the relief Captain, the only guy that had a problem with the 5th guy in the cockpit said "Hey, I was not PIC". The junior Captain, the PIC, had his ATP suspended for two weeks as punishment for bumping a FAA inspector. It was after that event that the most senior Captain was PIC. The senior Captain system then caused problems when they started building trips that were D/H MEM-CDG, operate CDG-Subic, D/H Subic-KIX, operate KIX-MEM. Some had a real problem with this system.

Jetjok 03-10-2011 03:37 AM

I, for one had a big problem with that lousy system, because in virtually every case, if the senior captain had wanted the original trip pairing, all he (or she) had to do was bid it. That way, they would have been the senior captain on the trip, and a junior captain would have gotten the relief captain pairing. I disliked the idea that a guy could be First-Classing all over the world, just to join another crew in mid-pairing, and take over the PIC duties, for a leg or two, then disappear once again, to deadhead somewhere else, to again take over a flight pairing.

It happened to me in February, 2003, when FedEx started flying into Kuwait in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. They were asking for volunteers to do that flying, and so I did. The trip went MEM - DOV- FRA-OKBK (Kuwait International), then on to DXB (Dubai Int'l), then back to CDG and finally back to MEM. When we showed for the FRA - OKBK - DXB leg, we met another captain in ops, who informed us that he was going to be the PIC. Besides really ruining the cockpit harmony we had established, this guy sat in the seat the entire time, and flew a lousy airplane. We had to go around at Kuwait, because he had gotten too close to a C-130 on final, then he demanded a right turnout, instead of the left turnout that tower had assigned, because he "knew" that Iraqi was "over there to the left somewhere". As well, he didn't allow the F/O to fly the second leg, as he took that one too. Then after clearing customs in Dubai, he immediately left the terminal, found our hotel van and told the driver to depart for the hotel. By the time the F/O and I got outside, the van was gone and we had to take a cab. Needless to say, that put a rather bad taste in my mouth for the remainder of the time I flew as a Captain.

JJ

4A2B 03-10-2011 05:12 AM


Originally Posted by thebigdawg (Post 961382)
There is no such thing as a PIC pairing.

There will be if this TA passes, like others have said the Block 5 rep was wrong on this subject in his letter. Even today (pre-TA) the FOM does have this screwed up procedure in place for double augmented flight. This TA settlement and the wording change in 22.B.2 of the CBA finally put this bad policy to bed.

Seniority applies in every case listed in 22.B.2, but should have never been allowed to be utilized twice with respect to bidding lines, first pick the trip you want and then use your seniority to bump a CA flying his butt off on a full crew pairing and disrupt the entire apple cart.

What's next for the seniority system, parking and bumping spots in democrat by seniority? Bid what you want to fly (or not if you want a monster D/H trip).

Cargo Pirate 03-10-2011 05:38 AM

The senior captain should be PIC. Period. It doesn't matter if he's on m/u, sub, reserve, etc... It doesn't matter if he's a bad captain. That is how seniority works. I don't care if you bid that line!

Check 6 03-10-2011 05:41 AM


Originally Posted by Cargo Pirate (Post 961484)
The senior captain should be PIC. Period. It doesn't matter if he's on m/u, sub, reserve, etc... It doesn't matter if he's a bad captain. That is how seniority works. I don't care if you bid that line!


BS... Bid a flying line or bid the easy DH's that's your choice and your seniority rights... Period. Once the flying starts you are SOL..so sit back..relax and don't burn the dinner...:mad:

The Walrus 03-10-2011 05:50 AM

Maybe the senior capt should be able to just take a trip from the junior capt line if he wants it.

I think that the senior capt used his seniority to bid the rf2 line, and he should be happy with it.

CAVU 03-10-2011 06:26 AM

Concur.

CAVU/very senior Captain

niteFly84 03-10-2011 06:38 AM

I agree also.. you want ff miles bid the RF2 pairing and sit back and watch..
ALso a very senior capt on 777..

Fly FDX 03-10-2011 06:46 AM


Originally Posted by Cargo Pirate (Post 961484)
The senior captain should be PIC. Period. It doesn't matter if he's on m/u, sub, reserve, etc... It doesn't matter if he's a bad captain. That is how seniority works. I don't care if you bid that line!

Seniority establishes bidding order. It does not establish succession to the Royal line, Rank, or any other delusions of grandeur that some one may have. Bid what you can hold, then deal with it. We don't need to go by date of hire, date of birth, d1(k length or any other B.S. "This is not the military, General. I mean Captain."

FXDX 03-10-2011 07:16 AM


Originally Posted by Check 6 (Post 961488)
BS... Bid a flying line or bid the easy DH's that's your choice and your seniority rights... Period. Once the flying starts you are SOL..so sit back..relax and don't burn the dinner...:mad:

Also concur.

Bottom feeder.

Laughing_Jakal 03-10-2011 12:52 PM


Originally Posted by Fly FDX (Post 961532)
Seniority establishes bidding order. It does not establish succession to the Royal line, Rank, or any other delusions of grandeur that some one may have. Bid what you can hold, then deal with it. We don't need to go by date of hire, date of birth, d1(k length or any other B.S. "This is not the military, General. I mean Captain."

Actually, in the military, it is very common for the Aircraft Commander not to be the "senior" pilot. The "A" code is given to the Pilot in Command....period. No matter who gets on the plane, the pilot-in-command is just that. Especially, if you have an extra, who is on there for augmentation purposes, a currency event, or an extra refueling pilot.....he or she does not "assume command" just because they may be "senior". In the AF, seniority isn't everything.....the "A" code is. Unless you are a lazy guy like me who likes to fly around in the back....knock of a currency event, and not have a care in the world...."Darn....there was a problem with that flight? Sure glad I wasn't in Command".

I have a funny feeling that the problem children were either single seat fighter guys or civilians who have grown up on a "seniority eats their young" mentality. For trash haulers, Spec Ops, and other multi-pilot aircraft, this phenomenon is common place.

USMCFDX 03-10-2011 02:24 PM


Originally Posted by Laughing_Jakal (Post 961810)

I have a funny feeling that the problem children were either single seat fighter guys or civilians who have grown up on a "seniority eats their young" mentality. For trash haulers, Spec Ops, and other multi-pilot aircraft, this phenomenon is common place.

I'm a single seat fighter fighter guy and take offense at that statement. I agree 100% that you bid the RFO line then you stay the food *itch! You bid the flying line then you sign for the jet. Seniority gets you the line, not the jet.

Some people just can't get over themselves and it is not because they flew fighters.

FDXLAG 03-10-2011 02:36 PM

Sometimes the flight lead is the most Jr Guy in a flight. Not sure where Jackal gets his prejudices from.

gcsass 03-10-2011 03:15 PM

Don't both Captains get paid the same?? So what's the problem here?? I can sit in the back, get the choicest crew meals, read, watch movies and sleep and get paid the exact same as the guy who will do the carpet dance if a taxiway light gets smashed? Perhaps I am a slacker, but when I upgrade anyone that wants the responsibility is welcome to come and take it...... just show me the money.

Kind of reminds me of a story I heard at my old Guard unit.... there was a senior Major there who never upgraded...... he flew around with a bunch of junior people, got paid more than they did and had no responsibility. That guy had it made!! Or so I have heard.........:D

Jetjok 03-10-2011 03:32 PM


Originally Posted by gcsass (Post 961929)
Don't both Captains get paid the same?? So what's the problem here?? I can sit in the back, get the choicest crew meals, read, watch movies and sleep and get paid the exact same as the guy who will do the carpet dance if a taxiway light gets smashed? Perhaps I am a slacker, but when I upgrade anyone that wants the responsibility is welcome to come and take it...... just show me the money.

Kind of reminds me of a story I heard at my old Guard unit.... there was a senior Major there who never upgraded...... he flew around with a bunch of junior people, got paid more than they did and had no responsibility. That guy had it made!! Or so I have heard.........:D

You'll probably understand when you upgrade to captain, before then, well it's sort of like a pig watching the super bowl, interesting, but hard to make heads or tails out of it. The issue is that when you're the captain, unless you're something really special (which most of us aren't), and you've been awarded a line of flying, you take offense at someone showing up in the middle of your pairing, and taking command of "your" flight and flight crew. It makes it even worse when you've been on a pairing for a few days and then, all of a sudden, here comes this senior guy, who just first-classed across the pond, to "fly your jet", for the next leg or two, then leave you and first-class either back home, or onto the next trip, where he will do the same thing to another hapless crew.

As for your Major friend, back at your old Guard unit, the guy was not only an under-achiever, but also someone without the drive to be all that he could be. Obviously someone I'd prefer not to fly with on my wing. Besides your story is opposite of the reality here, because there, he had elected to remain a wingman only, while here, it's a senior guy, who could have bid that line of flying, but for some reason, decided to not, and then he gets his choice of good deals, while cutting the junior captain out of flying the trip that he was able to hold. Sucks.

JJ

AerisArmis 03-10-2011 04:34 PM


Originally Posted by Cargo Pirate (Post 961484)
The senior captain should be PIC. Period. It doesn't matter if he's on m/u, sub, reserve, etc... It doesn't matter if he's a bad captain. That is how seniority works. I don't care if you bid that line!

So, in the interest of consistency, you believe that on a 3 man crew, if the RFO is senior to the FO, he should have the right to kick the FO out of his seat and fly the leg? That is how seniority works and you don't care if he bid that line? In the words of Sgt Joe Friday, "is that about it?"

Busboy 03-10-2011 04:41 PM

What if the F/O is senior to the Capt?:rolleyes:

AerisArmis 03-10-2011 04:44 PM


Originally Posted by gcsass (Post 961929)
Don't both Captains get paid the same?? So what's the problem here?? I can sit in the back, get the choicest crew meals, read, watch movies and sleep and get paid the exact same as the guy who will do the carpet dance if a taxiway light gets smashed?

Ah yes, but you probably don't have epulettes w/ 4 stripes on your pajama's and your wife doesn't say "good morning Captain" when you come downstairs for your morning cup of coffee. I'm afraid you need to get with the program.

MD11Fr8Dog 03-10-2011 06:16 PM


Originally Posted by Busboy (Post 961992)
What if the F/O is senior to the Capt?:rolleyes:

Happens to me all the time! :) I once had a VERY senior to me FO and my RF2 was Denny B. :D

Sluggo_63 03-10-2011 06:29 PM


Originally Posted by Jetjok (Post 961939)
You'll probably understand when you upgrade to captain, before then, well it's sort of like a pig watching the super bowl, interesting, but hard to make heads or tails out of it. The issue is that when you're the captain, unless you're something really special (which most of us aren't), and you've been awarded a line of flying, you take offense at someone showing up in the middle of your pairing, and taking command of "your" flight and flight crew. It makes it even worse when you've been on a pairing for a few days and then, all of a sudden, here comes this senior guy, who just first-classed across the pond, to "fly your jet", for the next leg or two, then leave you and first-class either back home, or onto the next trip, where he will do the same thing to another hapless crew.

As for your Major friend, back at your old Guard unit, the guy was not only an under-achiever, but also someone without the drive to be all that he could be. Obviously someone I'd prefer not to fly with on my wing. Besides your story is opposite of the reality here, because there, he had elected to remain a wingman only, while here, it's a senior guy, who could have bid that line of flying, but for some reason, decided to not, and then he gets his choice of good deals, while cutting the junior captain out of flying the trip that he was able to hold. Sucks.

JJ

I think you missed what he was saying all together...

MD11Fr8Dog 03-10-2011 06:36 PM


Originally Posted by Sluggo_63 (Post 962087)
I think you missed what he was saying all together...


Or so you've heard! ;)

Sluggo_63 03-10-2011 06:39 PM


Originally Posted by MD11Fr8Dog (Post 962091)
Or so you've heard! ;)

Or so I've heard...;)

thebigdawg 03-10-2011 06:44 PM

I am reading this in disbelief. You guys don't seem to get it. The senior pilots don't have a problem with someone else flying as PIC. I personally fly as Captain as RFO all the time. You can't get much senior than me. That is not the problem. The CBA, and the FOM say that it is the Senior Captains jet. The Senior Captain will be the PIC. Its always been that way at FedEx. I have included a copy of exact contract language. Senior Captain is right there with your standing bid, monthly bid, vacation bid. Are you sure that you want to allow a change to this. Seniority for your monthly bid might be the next thing to be changed. Here it is. Read it for yourselves:

SECTION 22
SENIORITY

22.B.2
Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, seniority shall govern all pilots in cases of vacancy posting awards, bid period schedule awards, vacation awards, ITU training schedules pursuant to Section 24, designation of the Pilot-in-Command/ Captain of record on double crewed flight segments, and retention in case of reduction in force and recall pursuant to Section 23.

The pilot group fought hard to have this included in the contract.

USMCFDX 03-10-2011 06:49 PM


Originally Posted by thebigdawg (Post 962098)
I am reading this in disbelief. You guys don't seem to get it. The senior pilots don't have a problem with someone else flying as PIC. I personally fly as Captain as RFO all the time. You can't get much senior than me. That is not the problem. The CBA, and the FOM say that it is the Senior Captains jet. The Senior Captain will be the PIC. Its always been that way at FedEx. I have included a copy of exact contract language. Senior Captain is right there with your standing bid, monthly bid, vacation bid. Are you sure that you want to allow a change to this. Seniority for your monthly bid might be the next thing to be changed. Here it is. Read it for yourselves:

SECTION 22
SENIORITY

22.B.2
Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, seniority shall govern all pilots in cases of vacancy posting awards, bid period schedule awards, vacation awards, ITU training schedules pursuant to Section 24, designation of the Pilot-in-Command/ Captain of record on double crewed flight segments, and retention in case of reduction in force and recall pursuant to Section 23.

The pilot group fought hard to have this included in the contract.

It was wasted effort. What did we give up so someone could pretend he was important.

FoxHunter 03-10-2011 07:00 PM


Originally Posted by thebigdawg (Post 962098)

The pilot group fought hard to have this included in the contract.

What has the pilot group fought hard for? The COMPANY changed the rules to make the SENIOR pilot PIC because there was a problem with a FAA Inspector being bumped. The COMPANY changed the rules when the SCP JL had a problem when SENIOR pilots bid trips that let them fly First Class, then bump the JUNIOR captain back to RF2. The pilots, FPA, ALPA did nothing. Now do you really think ALPA and the sort of T/A has done anything?

Heck, I would be happy if the pilot that had the primary pairing stayed PIC even if junior, if they would change the trip trade system from time stamp to seniority. The way ALL airline contracts are, with FDX being the exception.

thebigdawg 03-10-2011 07:23 PM

You need to check your facts. The senior captain has been PIC on dac for over 10 years. JL tried to change it but ALPA read JL the contract. Who really cares who's the pic anyway. The point is that whether you like the policy or not the union has aborgated seniority in the settlement of 10-02. We all should care about that.

gcsass 03-10-2011 08:47 PM


Originally Posted by thebigdawg (Post 962131)
You need to check your facts. The senior captain has been PIC on dac for over 10 years. JL tried to change it but ALPA read JL the contract. Who really cares who's the pic anyway. The point is that whether you like the policy or not the union has aborgated seniority in the settlement of 10-02. We all should care about that.

What about the abrogation of seniority contained in the current T/A as far as forcing a pilot out of an FDA at 4 years 9 months?? If they are taking away your seniority rights should that not be a cause for concern across the board??

Laughing_Jakal 03-11-2011 05:02 AM


Originally Posted by USMCFDX (Post 961890)
I'm a single seat fighter fighter guy and take offense at that statement. I agree 100% that you bid the RFO line then you stay the food *itch! You bid the flying line then you sign for the jet. Seniority gets you the line, not the jet.

Some people just can't get over themselves and it is not because they flew fighters.

My apologies....I just meant to say it is probably someone who has not had a lot of experience in the situation.....didn't mean to say that all were like that....

Laughing_Jakal 03-11-2011 05:02 AM


Originally Posted by FDXLAG (Post 961903)
Sometimes the flight lead is the most Jr Guy in a flight. Not sure where Jackal gets his prejudices from.

Again...I stand corrected


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:46 AM.


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