RedeyeAV8r

So in your mind, what is our Alternative?

Continue to Negotiate the whole Contract and hope that they secure a better deal?

In the meantime, per Section 26K, the Company Introduces the 767 in a Category they deem appropriate. Unlike the 777, We already have
300 plus trained 757/767 Pilots flying right now, who would only require differences training to operate the Aircraft.

Sure this will go to arbitration (during Section 6) What do you think the Arbitrator would say when the company shows how DAL, UAL-CAL and USAir do it? Not to mention the arbitrator would most likely say "you are in Negotiations, this is where this should be handled."

Is the Memorializing the 767 as a WB category and separate Bid Pack right now a bad thing? Sure I would prefer there be NO language allowing cross reserve or Draft utilization but since every other Airline flies them both together, I think this is a better option for us.

And I have stated this before, look at our History.

Were you here when we tried to fight the MD-10 /MD-11 combination?
How did that turn out?

I assume you were here for the 777 section 26k Arbitration? How did that turn out for us? Remember how the membership supported that, they were stumbling over themselves to get on that airplane.

If the Union decided to take a Bold Stance and request nobody bid or Fly a 767, First off there is no contract protection for the 300 plus 757/767 pilots now, do you think they would get the required support from the Pilots? Many whom are wearing 767 lanyards as we speak. Support from the Pilots who just down bid from their Widebody Captain seat to Fly it?

Is this LOA, 100% of what I would want? No

The first 767 is scheduled to show up in 4-5 months. I for one would like to see some type of deal before that happens.

DiamondZ

True.

BUT

Using simple numbers...

Let's say historical manning for WB 7A7 is 100 CA and FO. Manning for NB 7B7 is 100 CA and FO.

With a common reserve pool between A and B, the company can now man WB 7A7 at 80 CA and FO and NB 7B7 at 120 and 120. The WB flying is still protected but we effectively lost 20 WB CA and FO positions.

Here's the B scale...those 20 lost positions should normally be held/paid at WB according to seniority. The bottom 20 guys on the WB 7A7 seniority list are 'cut' and moved down to the NB seniority list. They are protecting the WB flying at NB rates unless they actually fly the WB plane.

At least that's my simplified interpretation...

TheBaron

That would be a problem except for the stipulation in the LOA that matches 767 manning to 767 SCH. If the company short mans the 767, they have to build two R24 lines in the 757 bid pack for each shorted crew member and pay them at w/b rates. Seems like a penalty the company would want to avoid. That's the way I see it. I'll admit however, that anytime I read something that has "Whereas" and "Be it resolved" I sometimes have a hard time figuring out what the hell they mean.

PurpleFreight

My question is:

What is keeping the company manning the 767 less than proportional to 767 SCH? They will be able to short man the airframe and pay a monthy "tax" which, by my estimation, would be a small price to pay. They would be able to overload the 757 seats where pay for vacation, sick leave, B-plan funding, etc. is paid at the lesser Narrowbody rate instead of the higher widebody rate and potentially for a greater number of crew members.

Am I missing something?

purple1day

Not sure if you are missing anything, but it isn't a one for one relationship, meaning that the company cannot just undermanned the 767 and then create reserve lines in the 757 to cover. As the example on the LOA states if the ratio equation shows the 767 bidpack would need a extra captain in order to meet the LOA parameters then the company must build TWO R24 lines in the 757 bidpack. I will admit that I haven't run the numbers for the vacation, sick, ect. (I don't think any of us has) but paying for two lines of flying when they could have just paid for one doesn't seem like good business for me.

I look forward to the union road shows better explaining the LOA.

4A2B

all good debate but I have two major problems with your post. 1) the postings on another site should be left there, that is a "semi" private site and the debate appears to much more robust and fact based when you include the loss of relative anonymity. 2) B scale? seriously I almost puked a little bit in my mouth, pilot A obviously does not understand that the term B scale has no place in this discussion as it is not anywhere close to what our other airline brothers/sisters have had to put up with in a real B scale. it is a "sexy" term, heck headline grabbing but a patently incorrect use of the term.

Lucky7

Depending on what side of the fence you are on 75/76 there is a different perspective. Separate bid packs essentially locks 75 guys out of wide body pay chances that would be around with a single bid pack. It guarantees guys in the 76 that like reserve to be paid at widebody rates. I can see the CGN pilots, Airbus Siba losing some of their flying to 76 bid pack flyers who revenue over to Europe and take up a week of their hubturns. Far cheaper to pay a 76 crew $50 more to fly the 75 around then to pay for the housing LOA or to deadhead a Bus crew over and back.

I wonder about training esp. IOE, Will crews be able to do most of thier IOE on the 75 with differences even if they hold 76. That would strongly hamper IOE bumping on the 76 right seat.

This will make the 76 a senior airplane on par with the other widebodies instead of the junior widebody it would be with a single bidpack. I would have liked a single bid pack with fences in the reserve lines for wb/nb pay, along with vacation/ sick paid for whichever trip you knocked out. Training and vac buyback at WB pay. Reserve lines would be proportional to the number of lines with ANY 76 flying on them. This would make the company strive for pure 76 lines to lessen reserve pay and let senior pilots avoid narrowbody pay during a line of flying.
Right now I think anybody on property could sit in a widebody if they wanted. I would like the flexibility that the MD guys have of their variety of flying and pay potential without having to fly that plane. This LOA doesn't give that to me without locking me out of one or the other.

Oh and although an interesting lead this is in no way a B scale. Everybody flying the 76 will have the same WB pay scale. Everybody flying the 75 will have the same NB rate or better.

pipe

Actually......

A pilot senior enough to bid the 767 will get WB pay. A pilot senior enough to hold Airbus or MD Captain at a high percentile today will be a 757 Capt in our brave new world. He'll hold WB pay for peak and Valentines Day rather than year-round (if he chooses to bid reserve at those times - which is great for commuters).

What this LOA changes is the threshold for "senior enough to hold widebody". It will now be a fluid thing with those near the edges living below the threshold most of the time.

I would think 757 guys can expect all staffing overages for both airplanes to be carried on the 757 list. Lower ALV most of the year. Hope BLG in the 60's is good 10mos/yr. 757 will be lowest rate AND lowest BLG. There's your B-scale.

It looks to me like the long-term bottom line is that WB pilot positions are being traded for NB pilot positions. I think that's about as simply as it can be put.

Pipe

TheBaron

..........

Gunter

I don't remember cries about a B-scale when BC handed us a TA in 2006. That's when it could have been used, from a certain perspective. It does not apply now to this proposal. Keep using it if you want people to disregard your point.

I have never seen such confused posts on here or on JetFlyer. I don't even know where to start.

Good luck.