USMCFDX

Is that the same "know flying" that doesn't make it into the LA bid pack? Read the SIG notes how the company for months was adding the xtra pairings to HNL. Oh but it wasn't "known flying".

I think I'm with MalteseX, I think I'm for the LOA, but it looks ripe for abuse to me. Paranoia? Maybe, but past practice by the company is the reason.

The Walrus

They hold flying out of bidpacks consistently.

Gunter

XTRA's and CHTR's that will have a 767 segment SHOULD end up in 767 open time.

But what if some are constructed as 757 pairings then get "last minute" revisions to include 767 flying. That's a technique they like to use now to get DPs flown. Will that be monitored?

Big Picture - We won't be able to stifle all the ethically questionable games they will play. Games they like to play now with CHTRs and XTRAs. New games they will play with reserve. They like the flexibility and were unlikely to agree to stop that activity. Is the enough to negate what was preserved?

Positives - Crew members now have solid protection from getting an overall pay cut if they bid the new airplane. My prediction is the 767 bid pack will have a relatively high average too. It looks like the company has an incentive to make that happen if it is allowed under the agreement. The 767 may have fewer crewmembers than it should but that is not all bad. It preserves the benefit of being senior enough to hold it. 757 guys have a chance at a nice pay boost every once in awhile. Maybe on a regular basis. The 757 will be the plane to bid if you like standby lines.

Historically, many crew members have stayed on the narrow body pay scale for QOL. That apple cart has not been turned over. More senior crew members can bid the 767 with confidence. It's not ideal but when have we ever seen the ideal during negotiations?

Gunter

oh, nevermind

pipe

Who will monitor all of this? What will be the recourse for violations? These are the problems that bite us every time. The company will do whatever they find that they can get away with. Errors, omissions, and questionable calls will never lean toward the pilots because the company decided to interpret "conservatively". Contracts are only as good as the ability to enforce them.

I'd like to see contract enforcement review the LOA proposal from their viewpoint. They are the linchpin that determines the true value of this thing.

Pipe

MaxKts

Why don't we just let the company implement their plan - you know - the one that has a combined 75/76 bidpack and the only time anyone sees widebody pay is if you fly a 76! All reserve, training and vacation paid at narrowbody rates. Yep that's what I'm voting for

Gunter

And why shouldn't we roll it into the CBA instead of an LOA? Seems to be a hot topic.

For those pushing for no LOA - Have you considered a possible excess out of one or more widebody seats as the 767 comes aboard? if you don't think that is possible you are somewhat naive. Or you have your own agenda that you are putting ahead of those who might be excessed.

As was mentioned before the arbitration would be over payrate only. The company has already committed to widebody pay for the 767 so that's not a player here.

If I was excessed out of guaranteed widebody pay of 68/85 a month into a mix of wide and narrow body pay I'd be a little unhappy.

Maybe now there will be a few who would bid to relieve such an excess if it were to occur. IMHO it is more than a slight possibility.

4A2B

If you have evidence of such please report to the Union, that is a CBA violation. The LAX-HNL flying, whether we like it or not is not a regularly scheduled flight by either day or time of operation, viewable in advance in the ALS and/or jumpseat system. If they are I would also recommend sending that info into contract enforcement.

The Walrus

The following are quotes from the sig notes for april. It is like this nearly every month.

Due to some last minute revisions, we had to hold out several pairings. All of these pairings, some of which are Single Departure Lines and some others that will contain International DHs, will be available during the secondary (VTO) process.

We had numerous left over trips that were not put on to lines because they touch fewer days than they pay creating min-days off violations. Example: Short TLV pays 11+38 yet it touches 3 days. All of the short TLV trips did not make it on to lines.

The weekend OAK Hotel Standby pairings on Friday and Saturday nights were mistakenly not produced by CRP before build week. Therefore, we could not build them into the bid pack. These standby periods will exist in April and should be available for Secondary Lines.

The Walrus

Here is march sig notes.

A new pairing design for the domicile this month is pairing 38. This trip operates LAX-IND with a 14-hour daytime layover before operating IND-CDG. It was not built onto lines and will be available during the View/Add Window and for Secondary Lines

First Officers will be disappointed at the loss of regular lines. Nearly 10 percent of the month’s hours remain in open time at the end of the month, 11-24 March. These 40+ CH pairings will be available for secondary line holders.

Feb.

Pairings 20, 26, and 2025 were held out of the bidpack for late fixes. These pairings will have an earlier DH and will be available for carry-in conflict and open time.

We have several 45+ CH First Officer trips near the end of the month that were not built into lines because there were not enough small trips in the beginning of the month to pair them with.

Pairing 2012 has the previously disputed HNL-AKL-SYD sequence. The rational for not disputing this pairing is in the opening paragraph. We still are concerned with the duty period. If you have any difficulty with the sequence, please let us know. The front end dead-head will be revised, and the pairing will be available during the view/add window.