Try as they may, PBS will never happen. Union will disolve before that happens and that aint happening.

 

I think all you can say about the manning of the B767 side under the LOA is that it is not going to be overmanned.

 

Can't be any worse than an MD-10 guy getting his once a year -11 trip.

 

Why? It protects seniority for both pay and quality of life. If you are senior enough you can bid the 767 lines. If you are senior and want to fly GFK (for whatever crazy reason) you can bid the 757 lines.

 

Lots of companies use the same crews to fly both jets. I'm guessing our guys will figure it out!*?

 

not sure it reads that way, you can only bid lines that are in your bid pack. There could be some 757 flying in the 767 bid pack but no 767 in the 757 is the way it reads (there is an ALPA exception to approve 767 flying in the 757 bid pack though).

 

The only time the pilot pools mix is draft and reserve. Technically you could have a RSV or drf trip on the 75 consisting of a 75 capt and 76 fo, with the 76 guy getting wb pay and the capt getting narrow body. And vice versa. You could have a drf 76 fo getting paid more than a RSV 75 capt. But that can happen anyway on the straight wb.

Personally, other than all airplanes at wb rate like ups, this seems like a pretty good solution.

 

So, you were for it, before you voted against it!

 

Yes! (extra characters for minimum letter requirements)

 

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 !