FDX - What is the penalty ...
03-22-2013, 04:22 PM
#1
Organizational Learning
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
FDX - What is the penalty ...
What is the penalty for undermanning the B-767?
If you've read the LOA or any of the discussion about it, you probably think you know the answer. Look a little closer.
With any other widebody airplane in our fleet, The Company has to man it so that they don't have airplanes sitting idle. If they run out of A300 pilots before they run out of A300 airplanes to fly, A300s sit idle. They can't just offer extra money to a B-727 pilot to come fly the idle A300. Sometimes they can persuade A300 pilots to come in on their OFF time by paying a 50% premium for Draft and Volunteer, but sometimes they can't. They have to man the airplane to avoid having idle A300s, because it's better to have idle pilots than idle planes.
However, with the B-767 and this LOA, they'll have another pool of cheaper (narrow-body) pilots to fly the idle planes. When they run out of B-767 pilots, they can pay a narrow-body B-757 pilot to fly the idle planes. No idle B-767 airplanes, and no idle B-767 pilots. The only idle pilots are earning the lower pay rate of the B-757.
But that won't happen much, because there's a penalty for undermanning the B-767, right? And you know what that is, right? Our Negotiating Committee Chairman (in the most recent video with the MEC Chairman) said, "It's an enormous, unnecessary, and avoidable expense to them."
Really?
The 50% premium paid for Volunteer and Draft trips is also an unnecessary and avoidable expense to them, but that doesn't stop them from manning to levels which requires Volunteer and Draft flying to get through peak levels of flying. It's a cost of doing business in a business that fluctuates from month to month.
So, what's the real penalty for undermanning?
Do you think it will serve as a deterrent for undermanning?
.
If you've read the LOA or any of the discussion about it, you probably think you know the answer. Look a little closer.
With any other widebody airplane in our fleet, The Company has to man it so that they don't have airplanes sitting idle. If they run out of A300 pilots before they run out of A300 airplanes to fly, A300s sit idle. They can't just offer extra money to a B-727 pilot to come fly the idle A300. Sometimes they can persuade A300 pilots to come in on their OFF time by paying a 50% premium for Draft and Volunteer, but sometimes they can't. They have to man the airplane to avoid having idle A300s, because it's better to have idle pilots than idle planes.
However, with the B-767 and this LOA, they'll have another pool of cheaper (narrow-body) pilots to fly the idle planes. When they run out of B-767 pilots, they can pay a narrow-body B-757 pilot to fly the idle planes. No idle B-767 airplanes, and no idle B-767 pilots. The only idle pilots are earning the lower pay rate of the B-757.
But that won't happen much, because there's a penalty for undermanning the B-767, right? And you know what that is, right? Our Negotiating Committee Chairman (in the most recent video with the MEC Chairman) said, "It's an enormous, unnecessary, and avoidable expense to them."
Really?
The 50% premium paid for Volunteer and Draft trips is also an unnecessary and avoidable expense to them, but that doesn't stop them from manning to levels which requires Volunteer and Draft flying to get through peak levels of flying. It's a cost of doing business in a business that fluctuates from month to month.
So, what's the real penalty for undermanning?
Do you think it will serve as a deterrent for undermanning?
.
03-22-2013, 06:01 PM
#2
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
Originally Posted by TonyC
What is the penalty for undermanning the B-767?
If you've read the LOA or any of the discussion about it, you probably think you know the answer. Look a little closer.
With any other widebody airplane in our fleet, The Company has to man it so that they don't have airplanes sitting idle. If they run out of A300 pilots before they run out of A300 airplanes to fly, A300s sit idle. They can't just offer extra money to a B-727 pilot to come fly the idle A300. Sometimes they can persuade A300 pilots to come in on their OFF time by paying a 50% premium for Draft and Volunteer, but sometimes they can't. They have to man the airplane to avoid having idle A300s, because it's better to have idle pilots than idle planes.
However, with the B-767 and this LOA, they'll have another pool of cheaper (narrow-body) pilots to fly the idle planes. When they run out of B-767 pilots, they can pay a narrow-body B-757 pilot to fly the idle planes. No idle B-767 airplanes, and no idle B-767 pilots. The only idle pilots are earning the lower pay rate of the B-757.
But that won't happen much, because there's a penalty for undermanning the B-767, right? And you know what that is, right? Our Negotiating Committee Chairman (in the most recent video with the MEC Chairman) said, "It's an enormous, unnecessary, and avoidable expense to them."
Really?
The 50% premium paid for Volunteer and Draft trips is also an unnecessary and avoidable expense to them, but that doesn't stop them from manning to levels which requires Volunteer and Draft flying to get through peak levels of flying. It's a cost of doing business in a business that fluctuates from month to month.
So, what's the real penalty for undermanning?
Do you think it will serve as a deterrent for undermanning?
.
If you've read the LOA or any of the discussion about it, you probably think you know the answer. Look a little closer.
With any other widebody airplane in our fleet, The Company has to man it so that they don't have airplanes sitting idle. If they run out of A300 pilots before they run out of A300 airplanes to fly, A300s sit idle. They can't just offer extra money to a B-727 pilot to come fly the idle A300. Sometimes they can persuade A300 pilots to come in on their OFF time by paying a 50% premium for Draft and Volunteer, but sometimes they can't. They have to man the airplane to avoid having idle A300s, because it's better to have idle pilots than idle planes.
However, with the B-767 and this LOA, they'll have another pool of cheaper (narrow-body) pilots to fly the idle planes. When they run out of B-767 pilots, they can pay a narrow-body B-757 pilot to fly the idle planes. No idle B-767 airplanes, and no idle B-767 pilots. The only idle pilots are earning the lower pay rate of the B-757.
But that won't happen much, because there's a penalty for undermanning the B-767, right? And you know what that is, right? Our Negotiating Committee Chairman (in the most recent video with the MEC Chairman) said, "It's an enormous, unnecessary, and avoidable expense to them."
Really?
The 50% premium paid for Volunteer and Draft trips is also an unnecessary and avoidable expense to them, but that doesn't stop them from manning to levels which requires Volunteer and Draft flying to get through peak levels of flying. It's a cost of doing business in a business that fluctuates from month to month.
So, what's the real penalty for undermanning?
Do you think it will serve as a deterrent for undermanning?
.
Here is a novel concept. Let the company introduce the 76 in a combined 75/76 bidpack. Up front they say everything will be at NB pay and you will only get WB pay if you actually operate a 76. They also have a system wide bid so no one can complain that their seniority was being abrogated. What could we do about it?
03-22-2013, 06:04 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by MaxKts
Here is a novel concept. Let the company introduce the 76 in a combined 75/76 bidpack. Up front they say everything will be at NB pay and you will only get WB pay if you actually operate a 76. They also have a system wide bid so no one can complain that their seniority was being abrogated. What could we do about it?
03-22-2013, 06:13 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,187
Originally Posted by MaxKts
Here is a novel concept. Let the company introduce the 76 in a combined 75/76 bidpack. Up front they say everything will be at NB pay and you will only get WB pay if you actually operate a 76. They also have a system wide bid so no one can complain that their seniority was being abrogated. What could we do about it?
03-22-2013, 07:06 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,187
Originally Posted by Pakagecheck
Ok, I'll ask, why would you want that?
Based on the LOA, I fully expect the 76 will be the most senior aircraft at FedEx. Great airplane, with a mix of domestic and most likely ETOPS flying. I won't be able to touch it for years (if ever) and maintain anything close to the kind of lifestyle I'd like to hang onto during my FedEx career.
Conversely, by combining the 75/76 bidpack, a guy like me would have the occassional opportunity to pick up an open time trip on the 76 and fly something other than hub turns to midwestern cities. And it would still allow guys with the seniority to bid and almost exclusively fly the 76 at WB pay, with the option to pick up an occassional MEM-BFM out and back on the 75 when the mood hit.
Bottomline, I would enjoy the flexibility offered by a combined bidpack. I'm obviously not chasing the buck. That probably puts me in the minority.
03-22-2013, 07:28 PM
#8
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 3B
Posts: 1,052
Originally Posted by Rock
Call me crazy but I'd actually prefer that.
Originally Posted by Rock
I downbid off the MD-11 because I prefer the seniority I have on the 75 over what I had on the MD-11. I commute and I don't sit reserve. With the proposed LOA, my chances of flying the 76 are slim and none if I don't actually bid to move to it.
Based on the LOA, I fully expect the 76 will be the most senior aircraft at FedEx. Great airplane, with a mix of domestic and most likely ETOPS flying. I won't be able to touch it for years (if ever) and maintain anything close to the kind of lifestyle I'd like to hang onto during my FedEx career.
Conversely, by combining the 75/76 bidpack, a guy like me would have the occassional opportunity to pick up an open time trip on the 76 and fly something other than hub turns to midwestern cities. And it would still allow guys with the seniority to bid and almost exclusively fly the 76 at WB pay, with the option to pick up an occassional MEM-BFM out and back on the 75 when the mood hit.
Bottomline, I would enjoy the flexibility offered by a combined bidpack. I'm obviously not chasing the buck. That probably puts me in the minority.
Based on the LOA, I fully expect the 76 will be the most senior aircraft at FedEx. Great airplane, with a mix of domestic and most likely ETOPS flying. I won't be able to touch it for years (if ever) and maintain anything close to the kind of lifestyle I'd like to hang onto during my FedEx career.
Conversely, by combining the 75/76 bidpack, a guy like me would have the occassional opportunity to pick up an open time trip on the 76 and fly something other than hub turns to midwestern cities. And it would still allow guys with the seniority to bid and almost exclusively fly the 76 at WB pay, with the option to pick up an occassional MEM-BFM out and back on the 75 when the mood hit.
Bottomline, I would enjoy the flexibility offered by a combined bidpack. I'm obviously not chasing the buck. That probably puts me in the minority.
You say that you bid the 75 because you would rather have seniority in your seat than higher pay. With a combined bid pack you would have neither. A junior guy wouldn't be able to chase quality of life, because the senior guy would have the widebody pay AND be able to outbid you for the lines you like. I don't see how that would be a good thing for you.
03-22-2013, 07:40 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,187
Originally Posted by FXDX
Ok you are crazy. You say that you bid the 75 because you would rather have seniority in your seat than higher pay. With a combined bid pack you would have neither. A junior guy wouldn't be able to chase quality of life, because the senior guy would have the widebody pay AND be able to outbid you for the lines you like. I don't see how that would be a good thing for you.
You say that you bid the 75 because you would rather have seniority in your seat than higher pay. With a combined bid pack you would have neither. A junior guy wouldn't be able to chase quality of life, because the senior guy would have the widebody pay AND be able to outbid you for the lines you like. I don't see how that would be a good thing for you.The current 75 lines won't go away with a combined 75/76 bidpack. I'm not seeing a rush by too many senior guys to move to the 75 to fly them.
03-22-2013, 08:18 PM
#10
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 3B
Posts: 1,052
Originally Posted by Rock
How many guys senior enough to bid WB pay in a combined 75/76 bidpack would bid a 75 line? Probably not enough to make a guy currently sitting relatively senior in the 75 junior. Again, that is assuming most guys are chasing the buck.
The current 75 lines won't go away with a combined 75/76 bidpack. I'm not seeing a rush by too many senior guys to move to the 75 to fly them.
The current 75 lines won't go away with a combined 75/76 bidpack. I'm not seeing a rush by too many senior guys to move to the 75 to fly them.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
