Laughing_Jakal

First, you guys are getting all hypothetical about something that doesn't exist...the LOA exists and it is the only thing that gets a "yes" vote or a "No" vote.

Tony, to answer your question, it was explained pretty well at the road show, and the answer is pretty straight forward and pretty elegant actually. For every pilot that the 767 is undermanned by as computed by the ratio (it is converted by the whole number of bodies to get the ratio back in whack), the company has to publish TWO 757 reserve lines that are pseudo widebody lines. Every activity in that month, be it draft, volunteer, makeup, vacation buy back, etc. will be at WB pay. This results in an effective Net GAIN of one WB position for the period of time until it is properly manned. (One WB line that "should have been in the 76 bid pack" and one more WB line as the penalty.....net gain of One)

Those WB paying lines in the 75 bid pack were referred to as "queen for a month lines". Since most enough are reasonably smart, if a pilot were to hold those lines, you could probably expect to see them doing a lot of activities that month. Even Carryover from the previous month would count. So not only will they pay for the WB line that should have been in the 76 bid pack, they'll also have to pay for an ADDITIONAL WB line PLus pay WB for all the whoring these "Queens" do that month. So there is an incentive to have them manned appropriately to the flying hour ratio because for every pilot they underman in the 76, they will have to make us whole in WB paying lines and additionally will pay greater than a 100% penalty. ( considering all the extra WB activity pay that month)

As far as the number of pilots that actually get paid WB seats, undermanning has the net gain of WB paying positions and is desire able from our point of view.

In another thread, someone suggested that if a 76 guy bids reserve and doesn't block out on a trip (vacation), he will get NB pay. This is categorically wrong. A 76 guy will ALWAYS get 76 pay for the month.

I'm not surprised many don't understand these things because when the road show was going on, many just bypassed the meeting to go home or were busy in the ops area munching popcorn and drinking coffee with their DP flying friends. (That was not directed at you Tony)

Laughing_Jakal

While the ratio is calculated in percentages, the correction to the ratio is in the number of bodies it takes to get the ratios above the threshold. Kind of like we are paid vacation hours, but we convert them to whole days....kind of a stretch but the concept is similar. My snarky comment at the end not withstanding, I was honestly trying to answer your question in a sincere manner.

Under the plan, the maximum number of guys that get paid only NB pay is the guys in the 75 bidpack and the minimum number of guys that get WB pay is the proper manning ratio in the 76 Bidpack. If that ratio ever falls below the 76 manning threshold then we gain more wide body paying seats.

There is one exception to this and that is if they are "buying up" lines in the 767 bid pack which would mean they are slightly overmanning WB seats anyway. Honestly we may see this for a little while until the fence sitters retire, it is not a long term reality, and if we are going to be overmanned in any seat, it is better for us if the overmanning occurs in a WB.

TonyC

So are you choosing B, or do I need to add another choice?

D) More than one R-24 line in the B-757 bid period package that pays the B-767 rate


I think you're on the right track, because I'm not asking about the formula ("2 for 1"), I'm asking about the penalty to The Company. What will it actually cost them? How much of a disincentive will it really be?


In that vein, consider what that second B-757 pilot would have been doing had he not been awarded the B-767 RP-24 line. What pay rate would he have earned? What's the difference between the wide-body rate and the narrow-body rate at his longevity year group? The difference is the penalty for every CH he earns. In other words, The Company is not charged the full cost of a B-767 pilot, it is only charged the difference in the pay rates.

Also consider that the first B-757 RP-24 pilot only costs the difference in pay rates, and he's also most likely junior to the B-767 pilot he "replaced." He actually comes at a discount, being a B-757 pilot with, say, 7 years of service instead of 15 years of service. He's cheaper than the B-767 pilot he replaced.

So, instead of paying one 15-year B-767 pilot the 15-year wide-body rate and one 7-year B-757 pilot the 7-year narrow-body rate, The Company pays one 7-year B-757 pilot the 7-year wide-body rate (a discount from the 15-year rate) and one 7-year B-757 pilot the 7-year wide-body rate (a markup from the 7-year narrow-body rate). The Company gets a savings on the first RP-24, and pays a small premium on the second RP-24.


Is there really any penalty at all?




You know I would have been there if I had been in town.






.

TonyC

They have to be buying up in both the B-757 and the B-767 bid period packages, and it only has to be one line in each. Also remember The Company sets the BLG targets to which the Scheduling Committee constructs the lines. The Company controls the triggers.






.

Laughing_Jakal

I understand your points, and I can't dispute your math, but in the event they underman the 76 the net result is more guys on the master seniority list get wide body pay. This means the most senior 75 guy who couldn't hold WB position can still get WB pay which is the ultimate goal. If they man it appropriately, there are an appropriate number of WB seats. If they undermanned it, then there are higher career expectations for the 757 guys getting paid WB pay.

As senior as the 75 is, The reality is that the guys that will hold the "Queen" lines are going to be most likely more senior longevity wise than the most junior guy that got "aced out of the 76 bid pack due to undermanning". This will effectively render your accurate longevity/pay differential analysis void. I know very senior pilots currently in the 75 fleet in both seats who have or are near maxing out longevity wise. So the answer remains "A"

Are you interested in ensuring a proper number of W. seats or "punishing the company". If all of our positions are based in the motivation to punish the company, there is no hope in finding meaningful solutions that meet the needs of both parties. More WB seats are a rising tide that floats all boats.

I'm going to assume you are fleshing this out so all may have a clearer understanding, and not just being contrarian, but it could be vaguely be construed as the logic that I saw so often in the USAF: "it's not enough that I should succeed but others should fail.

VR,

Jakal

Laughing_Jakal

Good point! Now since we can't change this LOA ( it can only be ratified or rejected) Can you answer this question? Put yourself in Tony's shoes.

Tony, do you vote

(A) to vote in favor of this LOA

Or

(B) vote against the LOA and reject it?

There are no other options. Period.

Nitefrater

Fixed it for you...

It IS a rhetorical question, right?

Laughing_Jakal

Either way is beginning to sound accurate. Seems he has not supported anything done by the STRATPAC.

I was referring to his concern that it wasn't enough to pay more WB seats, but he wanted to maximize punitive economic incentive as well as getting WB seats. I don't want the company to get hurt....I just want to maximize WB seats. Even if this is cost neutral for FedEx, if it results in more pilots getting WB pay,then I am satisfied. As a matter of fact. If we can preserve WB seats that become cost neutral for the company, the. I'd rather have that piece of the pie saved to split up somewhere else in the contract than having FedEx pay more out of spite.

Laughing_Jakal

Insert Jepp-ardee game show sound track here.

Tony? (In my best Alex Trebec voice).

"A" ? "B" ? Or continue to engage in intellectual self-abuse?

TonyC

What I think we all want is for there to be a proportionate number of wide-body crew positions to properly staff the wide-body airplane, and by that I mean crew positions that we can bid on per Section 24 Filling of Vacancies.

This provision of the LOA is purported to make that happen under the penalty of creating RP-24 lines in the narrow-body bid period package that pay wide-body rates.

We have another provision in our Contract that is supposed to allow us to prevent or delay furlough by lowering the Minimum Bid Period Guarantee. We thought we understood what it meant and how it could be used until it actually got used.

I'd like to avoid making assumptions that bite us in the tail later on. Now, the Negotiating Committee Chairman says this provision in the LOA is "an enormous, unnecessary, and avoidable expense to [The Company]." If that is correct, and it motivates The Company to properly staff the wide-body airplane, everything's great, just like when our pay was protected by 4.A.1. I agree the expense is unnecessary and avoidable - I am questioning whether it is enormous.

Of course, you and I know that staffing needs fluctuate from month to month. So, will The Company staff the B-767 like the MD-11 so it can handle the fat months even though that means lower BLGs during the lean months? Or will they man for the lean months and pay the "2 lines of RP-24" "penalty" in the fat months?


Another such instance of learning what they meant after the fact was The Company's intention to use RP-24s for airport standby. We were told that the new reserve system in our first contract was so much of an imporvement for us that The Company would have to employ another 400 pilots just to make it work. In fact, it worked so well that The Company implemented it a full month before the CBA went into effect. I bid and was awarded an RP-24 line. The second day, The Company had me sitting Hotel Standby in what was then the East Memphis Hilton (it's the Doubletree now). Now, I say all that to say this: When confronted with the fact that The Company was using RP-24s for Hotel Standby, the then FPA President, who had been on the Negotiating Committee, said he knew why The Company wanted the ability to do that, but he didn't think they would. Huh?

Was there anything in 4.A.2.b. to keep The Company from reducing our MBPG? Was there anything in the reserve system to keep them from putting RP-24s in the hotel? Is there anything in this "manning penalty" to keep The Company from undermanning the wide-body airplane? I just want to know before we get burned.

Short answer, I want the airplane to be properly staffed. If that's the case, there is no penalty to The Company. Will this clause make that happen?






.