None. What language prevents them from doing so? Trips assigned as RSV are ineligible for extra duty pay, disruption pay, etc, so there's precedent there. Examples of RSV trips being excluded from certain pay:

4.W.1. - Trips held in the following pay codes are eligible for disruption pay:
TRP, AST, SOF, SWP, M/U, MUV, MUD, MUS and CIA. If a pilot’s
eligible trip is disrupted as provided in Section 25.S., the pilot shall
receive disruption pay as follows:

4.Y.1. - Trips held in the following pay codes are eligible for disruption pay:
TRP, AST, SOF, SWP, M/U, MUV, MUD, MUS and CIA. If a pilot’s
eligible trip is disrupted as provided in Section 25.S., the pilot shall
receive disruption pay as follows:

25.S.2. - Trips in the following pay codes are eligible for disruption
compensation: TRP, AST, SOF, SWP, M/U, MUV, MUD, MUS and
CIA.

Unless I see it specifically say something about how it will plus up your paycheck and not count as extra leveling, I'll assume the worst...

 

This is what requires them to assign leveling only on the CH, not some magic formula of CH plus some extra for WB vs NB.

4.H.1,a -For leveling, trip guarantee or standby pay shall be credited upon assignment.

4.F.1 - A pilot’s trip guarantee shall be the scheduled credit hour (SCH) value of the trip when the trip is awarded/assigned to the pilot (e.g., bid award, trip trade, open time assignment) or when the pilot blocks out on the trip, whichever is greater.

How do they get around that and the precedent of the Intl override?

 

Can we look at an example with the bottom line:

a current 757 reserve (using 72 hour RLG) captain with max years is assigned a 42 hour reserve trip at the beginning of the month. Due to leveling, no other trips are assigned throughout the month (and thus RLG is not exceeded). The gross pay for the month will be 72 x $224 = $16128.

Using the LOA, that same captain is assigned the same 42 hour trip; however, it now contains a 767 segment. No other trips are assigned. As such, one would think that the pay for the month should be $16128 - (42 x 224) + (42 x 260) = $17640; however, I have not seen it specified on how the pay for reserves will actually be paid over the month. IMHO, the company will be able to look at it and say that the assigned pilot has not flown trips that exceed $16128 (the 767 assignment would only accumulate $10920); therefore, the total gross pay for the month would remain $16128.

From my position, it is not really a question of leveling; it is a question of pay.

Maybe there is something specific in the LOA that I have missed. If I have ventured into the Lion's den and failed to arm myself with the proper knowledge, then I profusely and utterly apologize ahead of time. If I have misspelled something or utilized poor grammar, I also offer my sincere apologies. Furthermore, if my math is wrong (I triple dog checked it), then again, please correct my errors and accept my deepest laments.

To the individuals that think this does not affect them, I offer a possible paradigm shift for your view. What bid packs are currently being bought up to 68 hours (excluding 727)? Why are those bid packs being bought up to 68 hours? Obviously, there is not enough flying to go around and distribute, i.e. too many wide bodies (CA and FO) for the amount of flying. Regardless of the reason (economy, remnants of age 65, etc...), the bottom line can be verbalized as "not enough wide body assignments to go around." And you have to know that as written, it appears that this LOA minimizes future wide body assignments / requirements for future crew upgrade availability. The bottom line is the total number of wide body positions required throughout the system that truly affects upward mobility for everyone - even that seat you may currently occupy.

When we voted for the improved FDA, we gave up an enormous chance to fix things wrong with the CBA as it existed, especially 4a2b - why? Was it because it was better than what we had or what would be imposed? Not trying to "pick a fight" as William Wallace would say. Yes, the 767 is coming. Yes, there may be some very short term losses if the LOA is not accepted; however, our overall collective strength lies under the total CBA negotiations.

 

Hadn't looked at it that way, but it's an EXCELLENT point. The point I tried to make earlier was the same, but not as well put. I thought they'd simply hide behind leveling to avoid a pay bump, but your explanation is actually much clearer and most likely how they can get away with it. Without specific examples such as the one you made in the LOA, it's fuzzy math. If they mean it one way, they should feel comfortable putting a clear example in the LOA. Especially since nothing remotely like this exists right now...

As to the loss of future WB seats when all the 767 reserves (except 2 required by the CBA) are manned by NB pilots, I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate the error in this argument. I'm really surprised (disappointed, shocked, etc) that, in spite of this FACT, people out there are still considering voting for this. The only people who should be for this are senior WB guys interested in hoisting the ladder up after themselves.

 

I can't say if they won't man all the reserves with NB pilots but to do so would require them to fly a lot of 75's around at WB rates!

 

How so? Say they need 20 reserve crews for the month on the 767. They build the 2 CBA required 767 reserve lines in the 767 bid pack and then have 18 extra reserve lines built in the 757 bid pack. They only have to pay WB pay if the 757 reserves are used on a 767 trip. The rest of the time they're paying NB rates. There will be no penalty clause since the extra lines were built in the 757 bid pack, so the ratios won't be affected.

If there were proportionality with regards to reserves, there would be 18 extra WB crews...

 

The ratios are SCH vs Manning so yes they would be effected!

Examples:

100 75 lines and 160 75 pilots, 20 76 lines and 32 76 pilots assume 72 hrs per line and the ratios equal .16 for both SCH and staffing.

Now put all the extra pilots in the 75 bidpack

100 75 lines and 172 75 pilots, 20 76 lines and 20 76 pilots. Again assume 72 hours per line and SCH ratio is .16 but, staffing ratio is now .10. 76 needs 12 more pilots to meet ratio requirement which would require the company to create 24 R24 lines at WB pay. They are paying twice as many reserves WB pay!

If they put 75 flying into the 76 bidpack

88 75 lines and 160 75 pilots, 32 76 lines (12 of which are 75 lines) and 32 76 pilots. The ratios are correct but, they are paying WB pay for 12 NB lines and WB pay for any reserves to cover contingencies.

Note: I left out the 2 reqd 76 R lines because it makes the math to fuzzy but doesn't really change the result.

 

I would feel better if the ratio was based on the number of airframes instead of the number of scheduled credit hours for each airframe. The number of airframes will vary much less than the number of credit hours each month.

Perhaps we could lock in a historical ratio of pilots per widebody aircraft and make that a minimum number of 767 pilot slots, regardless of the ratio method.

Additionally, I THINK that the intent of the separate 767 bidpack is to include separate secondary and reserve lines in that bid pack. The extra, punitive 757 R24 reserve lines that get paid 767 rates for that month and count to offset the ratio, would be in ADDITION to the normal amount of 767 secondary and reserve lines already in the 767 bid pack.

The problem with the above is obviously that it is not specifically delineated that way (so far as I can tell) and thus the company could take advantage of that and not build any 767 reserve lines. Here again perhaps a historical widebody average of the number of secondary and reserve lines per airframe/credit hours could be used as a baseline minimum to keep the company honest.

On first reading it appeared to me that the intent was to build a normal 767 bidpack that would include secondary and reserve lines, and additional R24 757 reserve lines would be built only if the manning was below the ratio to augment the normal 767 reserve lines, but since it doesn't specifically state that perhaps we need to tighten up the language.

 

[QUOTE=av8rmike;1373873]Supposed problems? Really? From the CBA, Section 25.M.2:


How about you? What are you worried about? Vacation being paid at NB after a crewmember bid and was awarded a WB line. Really? In what other instance can you demonstrate that any single pilot at FedEx has ever NOT received the correct pay for the line they bid and held on a vacation month? I think they call that "precedence" or something like that in fancy legal speak...

What if they treat the 767 like a override? Then if you do not fly one you do not get the pay, just like international override.

 

Upcoming MEM Hub Turn Meetings
A MEC Officer and member of the Negotiating Committee will be available in the MEM AOC to answer your questions regarding the B767 Letter of Agreement. If you will be in Memphis during the times provided below, please make plans to attend.
March 19/20, Tuesday evening/Wednesday morning - 12:15 a.m.
March 20, Wednesday - 12:15 p.m.

How many of you will attend and get your questions answered directly vs. pontificating here?

How may have sent all these questions to your Block Rep and/or Negotiating Chairman/Committee via email and/or phone call?