MEC votes to bring B-Scale to FedEx?
 

An interesting discussion on the Jetflyers page of Facebook concerning the LOA introducing the B-Scale at FedEx:


Pilot A-
The proposed 767 LOA firmly entrenches the “B-Scale” at FedEx and places at risk the career expectations of the majority of our pilots. I urge my fellow pilots to study and understand the implications of this agreement on our future.

Anyone familiar with the monthly SIG notes is aware the number of credit hours and regular lines can vary widely from month to month and bid-pack to bid-pack. What does not vary so widely is the number of Captains and First Officers assigned to each base and bid-pack. In order to change the number of Captains and First Officers assigned to a base and bid-pack a clear procedure is outlined in the CBA Sec. 24. This LOA eliminates the need for that pesky procedure.

It gets worse…

The LOA specifically erases the protection of CBA Sec.9.A.1 (See LOA B.6):
“All revenue flying covered by this Agreement shall be performed by pilots on the master seniority list. No pilot may fly a revenue flight in a crew position he cannot hold by his seniority” (Emphasis added.)
This LOA constructively erodes our rights under the CBA Sections 22 “Seniority” and 24 “Filling of Vacancies”. This is the basis for the creation of a “B-Scale” and reduced career expectations. I define a B-Scale WB pilot as a NB pilot flying WB aircraft but only occasionally earning WB pay. Alternatively, an A-Scale WB pilot always earns WB pay.

Let me explain. We all know there are certain times in the year the company has more pilots in a seat than it needs for a particular month’s flying. Other times the reverse is true. As a cost of doing business the company pays for a WB captain in months they could probably do without him in order to ensure availability in the months they do need him.

As seniority holders we know we will eventually fill one of those slots as retirements and system expansion occurs. Further, once we have attained a WB seat the CBA provides protections and procedures to prevent our arbitrary removal from that position and rate of pay (See CBA Sec 24.E.6.) The LOA removes these protections as well because the “B-Scale” WB Captain and First Officer (a 757 pilot that occasionally flies a 767 flight) is not an “A-Scale” or awarded WB Captain or First Officer.

Here are the implications to our future:
1) The company can AND WILL optimize the 767 WB slots to the minimum necessary to support low month projected flying. In higher CH months, the company will simply dip into the NB pool of pilots for “out of seniority” wide body flying (protected by the waiver of 9.A.1)
2) As a result, ALL pilots and 757 pilots in particular can expect much slower upgrades.
3) WB 767 pilots can expect fewer choices for vacation bidding (still need to cover the core flying and fewer pilots means fewer slots), virtually no VLT/DRF (vastly expanded pool of NB pilots in reserve), and similar reductions in training slots.
4) The company WILL need few WB reserves because NB reserves are always available at less expense.

The optimizer has a new set of clothes!

Here are the probable implications to our future:
1) 777 purchases will be reduced and replaced by more 757s and 767s. Why? Most of those pilots are only paid WB rates some of the time and the 777 pilots are paid WB rates ALL the time. Besides the range of the 777 is not necessary for most of the emerging market sectors of the next 2 decades (India, Brazil, intra-Asia). A re-evaluation of future aircraft acquisition as a result of this LOA is highly likely.
2) As the airbus is phased out it is unlikely to be replaced by another “pure” WB aircraft with the concurrent reduction in “A-Scale” WB seats. The same is already announced with the replacement of the MD-10. It is likely the MD-11 will follow suit.

There are too many other implications to include in this forum but the elimination of synthetic time is an important one. (e.g. a 3 city bid-pack has a possible combination of 6 city pairs whereas the addition of just 3 more cities increases the number of possible city pairs to 720!) Adding 757 airports to 767 airports will create new efficiencies in optimized pairing generation. If the past is our guide, this will undoubtedly result in the reduction of time off away from home to contractual minimums and vastly increase the circadian disruptions we WILL experience. The SIG and our CBA are ill-equipped to address these issues. ALPA’s effectiveness and, dare I say, enthusiasm in addressing cargo work/rest issues is even worse.

Finally, a quick word about an arbitrated 767 pay rate. Despite our abysmal record in arbitrations, an arbitrator would remove the thin fiction of fairness to go against an accepted industry standard and rule the 767 is a narrow body. Hence the LOA gains us very little and actually risks a lot.

Vote against the B-Scale, Vote for your seniority and career, Vote down the 767 LOA!

---

Pilot B responds- Thanks for your well thought out opinions on the B767 LOA that is in front of us for a vote, good debate and discussion is both healthy and warranted to ensure that we all are educated to make the best informed vote possible. While I expect that more detailed information will be provided by the MEC and the NC on the details of this LOA, the fact is that the agreement is out in the public now and we all like to read into it what we think will occur and where we think the gremlins are possibly hiding, so against my better judgment I will wade into the debate waters as I am sure they are “fine”. I recommend that anyone taking the time to read these posts on FB or any other “non-ALPA” site not use any of these discussions as their sole basis for an up or down vote; if you have questions on this agreement I strongly suggest that you seek answers/verification through your official ALPA channels.

The requirement for separate crew position awards (CBA section 24) and separate bid packs is the most critical part of this LOA to me. In a base with both the 767 and 757 each aircraft will have its own bid pack which includes regular, secondary and reserve lines and seniority lists. There is no option to change the number of pilots awarded the B767 or bidding on the B767 bid lines, other than via CBA section 24. The waiver for section 9 is required in order to allow the B757 pilots to fly the B767 (paid at WB rates) due to the new concept of a combined “base” with pilots paid different pay rates, but does not subvert the section 22 or 24 processes, more on that later. Equally as important is the fact the open time is partitioned off for all bid line adjustments, including volunteer. This will prevent one group from hoarding the others open time and vice versa. If a trip must be filled by draft, the seniority lists will be combined and the CBA draft procedure will be followed. There will be no disadvantage for a B767 pilot to get a volunteer trip at least not more so than any other crew position based on staffing levels. If you are on the volunteer list they have to assign volunteer among the B767 and/or B757 pilots only before combined draft.

Vacation bidding and recurrent training bidding will all be done within each bid pack and CBA section 7 requires that vacation slots be available as in any other bid pack, hence no “limiting” reduction can occur for our 767 pilots can occur beyond what can be done for any other current crew position. (From CBA section 7: “A sufficient number of vacation slots shall be available for bid to cover all anticipated vacations in each crew position. Available vacation slots for a month for a crew position shall not be less 3% of the total annual vacation time to be awarded for that crew position; provided, however, that there must be at least 1 slot available for bid in each crew position each month.”)

When a trip (from either bid pack), is forced into the reserve assignment window the reserves will be treated as one list. This is obviously an efficiency gain however it also introduces some interesting scenarios, for example if the pilot first on the leveling list is a 767 pilot, yet the only trip currently open is a 757 trip, they assign the 767 pilot and thus utilize a WB pilot for that B757 trip and if the next trip that opens up later on in the day is a 767 trip and the next pilot for assignment is a 757 pilot, he gets assigned the trip and is paid the WB rate.

The main advantage I see to the combined reserve option is that it should help ensure that if one bid pack or the other is tight on manning that the reserve forecast model and max open time matrix will be measured against a net larger reserve force than if they were separate. Hopefully the combined list will help with the dreaded “insufficient reserves” message when trying to make a bid line adjustment, in either bid pack. At the very least it ensures an even playing field for both the 767 and 757 pilots so one group is not hurt by a lack of reserve manning more than the other.

The SIG really has nothing to do with this entire procedure other than building the 767 lines and pairing reviewing duties as in any other bid pack, the Company must build all B767 flight segments and whatever B757 flight segments it needs into B767 pairings that reside in the B767 bid pack. The SCH ratio looks like it is a safety net or floor to ensure that the number of pilots awarded B767 Crew Positions is consistent with the same number awarded the B757 (e.g. not skewed so that one aircraft has X pilot per aircraft or CH on the other has Y). FedEx does not appear to rely on traditional “staffing formulas” (like X crews per aircraft that you see at some carriers) rather it is gauged by credit hours as evidenced by this LOA. If for some reason the ratio fails the SCH test there is a penalty, on a 2 for 1 pilot basis that they publish WB paid extra WB R24 lines in the B757 bid pack.

Does this mean we can expect yoyo like system bids in order to move people in an out of 767 WB seats when hours are down seasonally? I think not, our section 24 is not conducive to excess bids (bid to relieve, FEPP etc) and the Company can’t force a 767 pilot to simply downbid into the 757, they can go where they can similarly when it might be time to “rebid” those 767 seats when hours are higher there is no guarantee on who will bid into those seats, it could be an all new group of non 757/767 pilots requiring ITU. At the end of the day, it appears the goal of the system bid procedure, pay structure and staffing test is to ensure that we retain as many WB paid positions for the 767, just as if it was say an A-330 standalone base and I think the agreement comes as close as we can to that short of not allowing mixed 767/757 flying which is not industry standard. I personally think the Company would be well served to staff the 767 seats with a few more pilots than they contractually require from the SCH ratio because they can blend in as much 757 flying as they need to make the 767 pairings and lines efficient for the actual number of pilots they have activated in the 767 seats, because alternatively they have a pretty severe penalty of creating, possibly unneeded, R24 WB reserve penalty lines.

While I personally would liked to have seen an agreement that found a way to raise the current B757 to WB rather than concentrate on work rules for combined ops at different rates but the MEC elected to go this route and I fully support their leadership and direction. So, what is the alternative to this LOA? A CBA Section 26.K agreement or the 26.K arbitration route would determine the B767 pay rate category, relatively simple on face value and really not concern to me. Having been one of the ALPA System Board Members in the B777 Arbitration Case I also tend to agree with Mike that the past pay rate arbitration’s (MD-10 and B777F), history alone fully supports that an arbitrators decision should be that the B767 fits squarely in into the WB category…but what protections do we have from the methods that may be used in a split rate (NB/WB) “common aircraft type” bid pack that is implemented vice negotiated? So the choice(s) are we either agree to ratify a negotiated front end agreement (this LOA) or we “wait and see”. If we do not like what happens in the “wait and see” concept then we are back in the grievance world. Short of the Company sustaining a grievance we may file, we will be right back to the system board of adjustment and at the mercy of another arbitrator for a decision on much more than “what category of pay does the B767 rate”?.

No deal is perfect, this one included, but in my opinion our NC and MEC have secured an agreement that does an excellent job of securing the items that are critical to our careers. The B767 will be staffed via section 24 system bids, paid 100% at WB and some B757 pilots can and will be paid more than they are today. Is there stuff in this LOA that is beneficial to our Company? Of course, negotiations are rarely a one way street and this LOA should represent a positive, emotion free, business decision.

Many of the points made by Mike are completely valid regarding business model changes etc., but at the end of the day we have little control, if any, on those types of decisions as I do not think this LOA will modify or change that behavior. I simply do not believe that the core FDX business model rises and falls on how we pay and work the B767. Bottom line for me is that I like having control of my future all the while avoiding the pitfalls of the past and this is why I support this LOA and will be voting in the affirmative.

---

Pilot A replies-
I appreciate your perspective and experience. However, I respectfully disagree with the basic assumption upon which many of your points rest. That is, the company will populate the 767 at historic WB levels or something approaching those manning levels. I am absolutely convinced the company will not. It is unlikely the company would change spots and not use the optimizer to maximum advantage and populate the WB 767 base to the lowest level it can; this is likely to be the low bid month of the year utilization. Let’s investigate the implications of this outcome.

In contractual sleight of hand, the LOA (Sec.B.4.a) suggests that VLT “…shall be considered separate, without any ability to cross between them” suggesting the usual opportunities for extra flying within the WB population. Unfortunately, VLT is assigned after RSV (See CBA 25.G.3.b) emasculating any chance of extra flying for the WB pilots! LOA Sec.B.4.b specifically states, “… the B757 and B767 reserve pilots shall be considered a single pool of pilots.” Clearly, VLT/DRF opportunities for WB pilots will be limited by the large supply of NB pilots in the “single pool”.

A smaller 767 WB population will have fewer vacation options and recurrent training opportunities as a direct result of the smaller group. In a small crew base the most coveted vacation periods may be limited to a single slot (contractual minimum) reducing the WB pilot’s choices to that of far more junior pilots in other WB aircraft. The same would hold true for recurrent training.

On to the more worrisome aspects of the proposed LOA as this new manning model is embraced: the creation of a WB B-Scale and reduced opportunity for upgrade. Our industry has always defined the situation where two pilots operating the same equipment from the same seniority list are paid unequally as an A-Scale and a B-Scale. Isn’t this the case here? Won’t the NB pilot actually be a WB pilot paid mostly a NB rate of pay except for the part time work in the WB pilot’s seat? Further, that NB pilot is not in an awarded WB seat and is not protected by the provisions of the CBA section 24 which formalize procedures for pilots excessed to a lower pay scale. In other words, the B-Scale WB pilot (formerly known as a NB pilot) has NO contractual protections to the extra earning power of his B-Scale seat. This creates an unnegotiated, unmonitored constructive pay rate not listed in section 3 or protected by the CBA. In the case of an unruly FDA pilot group, the company would be able to whipsaw the B-Scale WB (NB757 pilots) against the A-Scale pilots in domicile by withholding the 767 flying.

FedEx bean counters are fully aware of the cost benefits associated with the Wal-Mart model of employing part time workers. The model allows for fewer full time (higher paid) employees supplemented by a far greater number of part time (lower paid) workers. While not easily transferable to a pilot seniority list, a clear similarity can be discerned. If FedEx mans the 767 crew base at a minimum level and supplements it with the part time WB pilots available in the NB fleet, aren’t they doing the same thing? If true, can any other conclusion be drawn that fewer WB seats available will result in slower upgrades? You may argue the “ratio” will prevent such an outcome. My response is simply that the company controls all the figures and data used to makeup the ratio and we have NO contractual right to check their numbers or methodology. This harkens back to Rudi’s poignant statements concerning trust.

Finally, CBA 9.A.1. is an incredibly important seniority protection and its discard should not receive such short shrift. This provision prevents the company from agreeing to a pay rate and simply adding the 767 to the fleet. True the obstacle could be overcome by a series of system bids but that process is both cumbersome and costly to the company.

Bottom line is we could do better than this LOA. The LOA does not “honor seniority”; it destroys it. How is seniority honored by allowing the waiver of Sec 9.A.1 and the creation of a B-Scale where junior pilots fly more senior pilot flights, have greater opportunity for vacation slots, training slots, and schedule flexibility. The LOA does not have “clear and un-concessionary” language as the ratio discussion is every bit as confusing as the current GPE language. We cede total control over how the ratio is determined to the company and their optimizer. This is not the way to proceed forward with the 767 integration ESPECIALLY during RLA section 6 negotiations.

Did Our MEC really vote 13 - 0 to do this to us?

I don't know! Have you read the LOA or just taking one mans opinion on the issue?

Also, you do realize the company wanted a combined bidpack and only pay WB rates when a 76 was flown. Reserve, training and vacation would have been at NB rates. Decide for yourself which is better.

you should probably order your 32% sticker now before the rush.

I'm afraid I don't understand your logic...what the company wants matters as little as what I want. It is what we negotiate and unfortunately later take to arbitration that matters. The language has to be strong and unambiguous. Not the case here in my reading of this LOA. I ask you in turn, did you read it and understand the implications of our rush to agree with the company? Besides the thread is not about me but about this questionable LOA and the introduction of the B-Scale to our pilot force!

The company says:

"We are going to create a common 75/76 bidpack and only pay WB rates when a pilot flies a 76."

Show me in the CBA where they cannot do that.


We ask for the loaded baked potato with all the fixens

The company says "No soup for you!"

We end up somewhere in the middle

It is what it is

Have mine already.

If you fast forward to a legal battle - an arbitrator will not support us forcing an incredibly inefficient way of operating common type planes on management. We couldn't even get a deserved pay rate bump for the 777.

Are you CRAZY?!?!??!

Civility such as this has no place on the APC vent-a-thon.

What the HE!! were you thinking in reposting this?!?!?!?

(sarcasm off....)

You guys use a lot of big words and legal sounding terms, but I don't see the B-Scale. A pilot senior enough to bid the 767 will only be paid W/B pay. Someone junior that can only hold the 757 (or senior that chooses the 757) will be paid N/B pay...except they will receive W/B pay when/if they fly the 767. Sounds like a normal A-Scale 767 W/B pay rate and an A-Scale+ N/B pay rate. Some narrow body gets paid more, no wide body gets paid less.

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.

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...

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

:confused:..........:cool:

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.

What's the difficult part to get?

If you can fly a 767 with a 757 pilot, you're going to do it at every opportunity. That means you keep the fewest number of 767 pilots you can.

Pipe

So in your Opinion, what is our alternative?

Do you want a combined Bid Pack?
Do you want a completely Separate Bid Pack?

And are you willing to roll the dice and go to 26K arbitration?

I doubt the staffing level for the 757 will be that much different than it was for the 727. I also doubt the company will play the excess bid "card." They've done that once in the past 8 years. Takes a lot in time and $$ to constantly shift crews to different airplanes, and if they are excessed, they aren't seat locked and can bid out in the next bid (chaos.) Company still has to pay minimum BLG of 68/85 (not 60's for 10 months) unless we go into 4A2B. Fewer NB's on property in 5 years than there were 5 years ago. Do you think the WB fleet is going to shrink substantially? Do you know of a secret deal to bring on more NB's?

So you fly a 767 trip with a 757 crew. That means the 767 crew staffing is below crew/SCH ratio and the company then has to build 2 R24 lines for 757 crews paid at WB pay. So where is that savings for the company?

Unless they are buying up lines in both planes. They are buying up lines in 5 of 9 right now with no incentive to do so.

And if a trip launches on saturday morning lays over for the weekend and then back on 757 which SCH are which? I would be 3 go in the 767 bucket and 15 go in the 757 bucket.

What you should be worried about is a combined bidpack. In that world, the no LOA proposal, the number of lines paid at the 767 rate can vary as much as the company chooses. Up and down whenever. I also think the number of pure 767 lines would not be maximized. There would be some pure and some mixed. Secondary lines might all be mixed. We would all be angry about the number of 767 XTRA pairings that would come out after the bid closed.

With separate bidpacks, they would have to excess you out of the 767 bidpack to push you down to 757 pay.

Not much additional cost to excess into a common rated, lower paying seat. There's potential to have smaller more frequent bids to level out required flying before and after peak. The 757 will obviously be the most junior plane on property. In general, most pilots would probably upgrade to the 767 without having to go through training on another platform, making the 767 the 'junior' WB plane. Would be very easy to excess the bottom back and forth as necessary.

Except if the reserve lines are built under the 757 bid pack (they will be), but used to cover 767 (as allowed by this LOA), the SCH and pilots are moved to the 757 so all is ok with the ratio

Except for the fact that during an excess you can go to any seat you can hold. Could be to 777, MD11 or even CGN 757.

Some can bid to relieve as well. Some will choose to upgrade at that opportunity. Excesses always cause a mess.

Completely agree.

But after the first few go-arounds/excesses, I'd imagine the majority of guys would find a seat to 'protect' themselves from excess. This would make the 777 and MD11 seats that much more senior as guys wouldn't want to get caught up in the back and forth shuffle. This would push the junior guys down to the 'junior' seats in the 767 and set up the seniority list to be shuffled easily between 767 and 757 as needed with little extra cost.

I don't necessarily think there is an alternative that is realistically available to us. I just can't understand all the guys on here who see it as a good deal.

It's good for the company. Hopefully it is good enough for the company as a whole that it offsets our loss.

In my final analysis I think it's going to happen. I don't think this is the worst we could have gotten. It just gets fatiguing that this career is an endless merry-go-round of damage control.

Pipe

Better than attainable alternatives is how I look at it. Would have been better if Mr. Smith had bought A330's.

I’m sorry, but the facts don’t support the notion that the 767 LOA is a B-scale pay concession. For the past several years in the 757 we’ve seen very junior captains in the bottom 5 or 10 get MD and Airbus captain seat awards. Very junior 757 F/Os likewise bid and get the 777. So if a 757 pilot wants WB pay, it’s been available and will likely continue to be with our 757 bottom-feeder seniority matching most WB bottom-feeder seniority except for 777 captains. The upcoming 767 bid will likely open more WB seats in the MD and bus for yet more of our most junior 757 pilots to go WB – if they want to. Yet more, we have new-hires in the 777 now. So again, if junior pilots want WB pay, it’s out there. You’ll be on the bottom of the WB seniority list forever, but that’s been the norm if you want the WB bucks. On the flip side, if a junior pilot wants to hang with the 757, the LOA gives them the opportunity to get 767 WB pay now and then. In contrast, 727 pilots, including some very senior ones have never been able to get WB pay except for being an LCA or flex. So when you consider our long 727 NB history, the 767 LOA is really a gain for the NB community as the 727s go away. Finally, yes, MD-10s and A310s are headed to the boneyard, which will reduce WB seats in contrast to the recent history I mention above. But LOA or not, the 757 will continue to gain lines from the A310, and that’s driven by the market and high cost/poor reliability of the A310, so it’s gonna happen no matter what. All things considered, our NC and MEC did a good job on the 767 LOA. :)

I don't think most see it as a "good deal"

They see it as "better than the alternative"

I think it's another case of a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

It's a zero (or negative) sum game. It's not a gain for the NB community, it's a loss for the WB community. I'm an NB guy and am not excited about trading my upside for some extra crumbs now.

Again though, I think this was over before the first shot was fired.

Pipe

The 727 is/was the junior aircraft on the property and pays NB pay. Been that way for years. If you look at the seniority list, the top half of that "junior" plane has always been relatively senior. Some people just don't like the kind of flying the WB's do. I don't see that changing with the 757. The top 30-40% is always going to go somewhat senior, the bottom of the list will be the most junior...as it should normally be. Should the most junior pilots have an expectation of WB pay? Not really part of the argument. Problem would have been a non-issue if we had a single pay scale (WB) like UPS.

And I still disagree on the idea of monthly little excess bids. If it were that easy we would have had an excess bid in the fall with training starting in January to push some of the excess WB crews down to the 757. Instead the company has been buying up lines for 4 months now. I just don't see it happening. The company isn't some mysterious evil empire out to crush the pilot group, regardless of what some may think.

Anytime you park airframes, it is a loss for the pilot group.

It was a loss when we parked the Tiger 727's
It was a loss when we parked the DC-8.
It was a when we parked the 747.
It was a BIG loss when we parked the DC-10 (real bad timing)

The fact that all the 727 are being parked is a BIG loss that isn't going to be stopped, LOA or not, new CBA or not.

The Company's grand scheme of slowly parking MD-10's and A300/310's won't be stopped, with or without an LOA or CBA.

In 2006 we agreed that the 757 was a Narrow body, not some new Large NB category or WB category to make up for the loss of the S/O and extra 20K of freight weight.

Be glad this LOA says the 767 is a WB. Imagine if the majority replacement aircraft for MD10's and A300 were considered a NB or some new less than WB category.

Looking forward, Imagine this company with 2 fleet types: or more importantly 2 Bid Packs.
777's and 757/767's

Now imagine one Bid Pack is WB
and the other is NB.

Yeah but! Didn't we agree the 757 would be a NB to get those awesome A380 rates that have paid so well????? :eek:

Now that's not fair ... DW & BC guaranteed me that the 777 would pay A380 rates!*? :eek: