Originally Posted by gcsass

MalteseX,

Beautiful summary......and a very likely probability that this type of thing is exactly what we will see and why it is designed this way.

Originally Posted by MalteseX

The LOA seems reasonable, and it attempts to allow the company efficiencies while protecting seniority, etc.

However, some of the details of the manning calculation may cause us to be miffed in the future.

This is my first read of the LOA and I may have missed something---but one thing I do not see is a "review" process for the SCH that are "needed" or "required" by the company for each bid pack. The way it reads, the company publishes the SCH required for 757/767 bid packs and also publishes the ratio for the required SCH for the 767 only. This ratio is used to determine manning of the 767..... the manning must be equivalent to the ratio, or the company must put a 2 for 1 757 pilot on R-24 for "each" 767 pilot under that ratio. That is good.

What may not be good, is that the company controls what the future SCH are for the aircraft. And they may "low ball" the SCH "required", thus making the need for less 767 pilots. However, they can make the ratio equivalent based on the overall "needed SCH" (as determined by THEM). So no need for the 2 for 1 R24 from the 757 pool. Then as more 767 requirements become "necessary" (even though it was needed all along) during the operational portion of that bid pack, the shortfall in 767 pilots will be made up by using reserves. This looks good and OK on the surface but lets say they use all 767 reserves (low numbers due to low ball SCH) and then start manning using 757 reserves--- and they do this month after month. Good for the 757 guys used for that trip; however all along these 757 guys were needed as 767 guys --- and they sat reserve (until used) at narrow body pay rate. In other words, the company needed these guys as 767 pilots all along, but low balled the SCH----with the INTENTION of using 757 guys all along......(and paying them at the lower rate when they needed wide body pilots all along).

That's why it would be good to have a company-union "review" of the amount of SCH the company said they needed for the 767 for a particular bid pack vs what was actually flown---and making sure that they are reasonably equivalent----or you may get the low ball.

Also, I would like to see tighter language (an amendment to) the use of reserves for the 757/767 and/or how draft volunteer etc will be implemented. I'm afraid that the 767 guys will rarely see draft--- the company has an incentive to add "extra" 757 reserve lines (over and above ANY reasonable 757 flying, and at the same time "low balling" 767 reserve lines) with the intention of using them (while sitting at narrow body pay rates) long before or with no intention of drafting 767 guys.

This is just on my first read--- I may have missed something, and some of those scenarios above may never happen.
But I don't see "tight" enough language to prevent the company from being able to do this---and we have seen that the contract language must be "lawyer-tight", when dealing with this company. Remember 4a2b ended with the sentence, "This provision shall only be used to prevent or delay a furlough."--- made it sound like it really limited the company---but we saw it didn't !

Originally Posted by 4A2B

SCH is the sum total of the actual credit hours in each bid back, not some "forecast" of need. Also each bid pack is separate for volunteer, which goes before draft. If draft is needed it goes per the CBA, but with a combined list and there is a method for who gets called, meaning they can't skip a 767 guy because he gets paid more. Lastly, when a 757 pilot operates a 767 trip (767 or 757 in the 767 bid pack) they will get WB pay.

Originally Posted by The Walrus

The SCH does not include trips created after the bidpack is published. What is to keep the company from creating mass trips outside of the bidback, thus artificially manning the WB aircraft.

Also, even though a 757 guy gets WB pay when flying a 767 trip, he/she does not get vacation and training paid at widebody pay.

Originally Posted by 4A2B

SCH is the sum total of the actual credit hours in each bid back, not some "forecast" of need. .

Originally Posted by The Walrus

The SCH does not include trips created after the bidpack is published. What is to keep the company from creating mass trips outside of the bidback, thus artificially manning the WB aircraft.

Originally Posted by The Walrus

The SCH does not include trips created after the bidpack is published. What is to keep the company from creating mass trips outside of the bidback, thus artificially manning the WB aircraft.

Also, even though a 757 guy gets WB pay when flying a 767 trip, he/she does not get vacation and training paid at widebody pay.

Originally Posted by MalteseX

Right, it is and I understand that. But what concerns me is HOW the SCH is determined. What would prevent the company from low-balling the SCH for 767 flying for any given bid pack?

Is there any other method for determining the manning on the 767?

I'm just worried that the 767 (wb pay) could somehow get undermanned using the LOA language. Or that the company could plus up the narrowbody reserves. There is no review process in the LOA to determine if the company's use of manning is correct. (again a caveat that I may be missing something).

I'm not saying the LOA is good, bad etc. I'm just asking questions in hopes that smart people can fix any holes in the LOA (if any exist)...... after 4a2b (the contract paragraph not the poster!!!), I think we should scour any contract language for potential "loopholes"