A truism.

Which makes it all the more important, and easy, to support the DPs we designate now.

After you log on to ALPA.org, select "My MEC/LEC" and "FDX MEC" at the top of the page. That takes you to the FedEx MEC page. Once there, select "Scheduling Committee" under the Committee's drop down. About 1/2 way down the page (beyond the Pirep entry form) you will see SIG Notes in an orange box. That has the current and two prior months SIG notes. Heaven forbid they put a nice easy quick link to it on the 1st page...or maybe they have and it is just well hidden.

Actually, on the FDX MEC homepage, just scroll 2/3 the way down, look on the right for a symbol that reminds me of Andy Capp fighting, right next to that are the current and next months dp's...of course, you could just save the current sig notes email to your desktop, but that might be too difficult for some :confused:

Which part do I misunderstand? Like you, I'm not picking up any DPs, but don't confuse that with the process working. As someone mentioned, we've had very few DPs over the last couple years, yet trips "seem" to be getting worse. Like many other things, the company finds a way around to get what they want.

You may remember a few years back there was an MD-11 DP in MEM or ANC, that was not picked up (assigned to reserves) for 3 months, after which time the company said that the pairing was needed for system function, our "united" union said OK.

It is what we have right now and like many other things we have right now, it needs to be fixed in our favor.

That happened in ANC and our union didn't just say OK. The way the process works is, after 3 mos of the DP not being flown(except by reserves), it goes to VP of flight ops for disposition. In this case PC decided the PR was good to go. A flawed system without a doubt, but it was not the union that said ok.

One theory? Let's say there were 100 DPs in the past and 95 of them got flown by independent operators/stupid people for 3 months straight. Those 95 now become part of the bidpack (the crappy lines you are now referencing). Now we have only 5 DPs, which will soon be flown by same types as before, and they will enter the bidpack in 3 months, thus making the lines even crappier.

You are correct and I stand corrected on the final resolution. The process still needs to be revisited, imho.

I'm a MD guy, so I can't speak for other airframes, but the last time I noticed the same DP (regardless of how it was flown, reserve/vto/greed) in 3 consecutive months was many years ago. VCP-SJU-MEM or MEM-STN-CDG I think. Point being, how does the current process fix a bad pairing that is not a routine pairing? That's where we are now.

I remember both of those, particularly the VCP-SJU-MEM. Have you ever flown that pairing? I have flown it once (not when it was disputed) and it is a very difficult sequence. I'm not sure I have been more tired upon arriving at MEM. I will not fly this pairing again.

Fact is that if we would have hung tough, they would have worked in an SJU layover or a crew change and deadhead home. We didn't, the union pulled the dispute, and we have that crappy trip on the books today.

This is how our pairings start getting real bad..... There is a consequence for the rest of us when our fellow pilots fly these trips....

You may be thinking of the blue in bold below about trips not flown. They don't have to be DPs.

F. Final Resolution of Scheduling Disputes: SIG Neutral Track

If the Association SIG members elect to pursue the SIG neutral track, the following procedure shall apply.
1. Upon written request by the chairman of the SIG, the SCP shall convene a Scheduling Dispute Board. The board shall be composed of the SCP, the MEC Chairman, one Company SIG rep and one Association SIG representative.
a. The board shall meet within 5 calendar days to review appropriate data, including the flying history of the disputed pairing(s), at issue and discuss reasonable options on how the disputed pairing can be reconfigured in light of the operational requirements. Both sides shall use their best efforts to resolve the problem.
b. If the disputed pairing can be reconstructed, rebuilt or combined into another pairing so that the overall cost of the pairing is the same or essentially the same as prior to the reconstruction and the change does not compromise system form or reliability, then the pairing shall be changed accordingly.
c. Additionally, if on a recurring basis, a pairing, disputed or not, appears in open time and is routinely avoided by pilots trip trading or eligible for make-up, OTP, etc., and therefore must be assigned to a reserve pilot, the above procedure shall apply, unless the Association elects to pursue the VP/MEC Chairman track instead.


Decision comes down unilaterally from the VP of flight ops on a DP when there is no solution. See red above and blue below.

G. Final Resolution of Scheduling Disputes: VP/MEC Chairman Track

The MEC Chairman may elect to notify the Vice President, Flight Operations that he is invoking the VP/MEC Chairman track regarding a particular SIG dispute. The notification shall be in writing and shall state the unresolved concerns/problems and the Association’s position. Upon receipt, the Vice President, Flight Operations shall promptly have the stated unresolved concerns/problems investigated, including a review of the process undertaken thus far regarding the dispute. After at least one bid period of flying data is gathered on the disputed pairing, the Vice President, Flight Operations shall meet with the MEC Chairman at a mutually acceptable date and time to review the results of the investigation and discuss options for dealing with the unresolved concerns/problems. Following the meeting, the Vice President, Flight Operations shall advise the MEC Chairman in writing of what actions, if any, the Company shall take to address the presented concerns.