TonyC

That's certainly simple enough for the sound bite generation.

So, "some" is enough to make you happy, huh?

You do realize we are in Section 6 negotiations to modify our collective bargaining agreement ... oops, let me tailor this to the sound bite generation ... we're still in contract talks.

This LOA is not our only chance to agree to work rules for the B-767.

Is there something wrong with trying to get the same number of B-767 seats as there would be for a A330? The Company could still enjoy the flexibility of having pilots fly both airplanes, so they can construct pairings with mixed fleets, and even be able to handle last-minute guage swaps without having to pay two pilots who they remove from the trip and place in substitution and another two pilots who they draft to fly the new leg. Instead of having "some" wide-body seats, we have the same number of wide-body seats that any other wide-body airplane has.


I suppose settling for less does have that appeal of being simple.






.

MaxKts

WHERE does it say we are going to just put 76 flying in the 75 bidpack.

You keep arguing that the company will cover the 76 with 75 pilots. It doesn't work unless they want to add those 2 extra R24 lines every month. Now that isn't saving them anything is it?

TonyC

Every B-757 pilot on reserve is a potential B-767 pilot. It's not restricted to the B-767 RP-24 "penalty lines" which pay everything at the wide-body rate -- EVERY pilot on Reserve is in the combined pool to fly either airplane. Mind you, The Company could man the B-767 for lean months and end up with very few Reserve Lines, while the B-757 bid period package might have very many Reserve Lines. They all sit reserve for both aircraft.

Every B-757 pilot who answers the phone for a draft call is a potential B-767 pilot.

Every pilot who operates a trip which could be revised to include a B-767 leg is a potential B-767 pilot. (That includes every B-757 pilot on every B-757 trip -- they all can be revised.)


As for the last remark, I'm not sure whether the "penalty" RP-24 lines save or cost The Company. There's much more to compensation than the simple credit hour dollar figure in Section 3. There's the cost of vacation, sick, disability, training, retirement contributions, etc. Balanced against the minimal cost of two RP-24 Reserve lines for relatively junior guys versus the cost of one wide-body line (more senior) and one narrow-body line (less senior), I estimate it to be less than the cost of Draft for the trips that pilot might fly. The first RP-24 line represents a line that should have been in the B-767 bid period package in the first place, so it's a discount. The second line represents a bump for a narrow-body pilot, but the likelihood that the affected pilot will be in a lower years-of-service group means there is a discount. Even if it's the same year group, the cost is only the differential between the narrow-body and wide-body pay rates - - hardly a huge expense to The Company. We haven't seen an analysis from E&FA, or a breakdown of costs, so I don't know if it's a cost, a savings, or neutral. It sounds scary at first, but is it really a strong incentive to The Company to man the B-767 properly?







.

MaxKts

So, do you think the company would ever agree to COMPLETELY separate bidpacks?

If not, and you were King, what would be your solution?

TonyC

The Company wants to extract efficiencies from the "dual fleet", and it would be unreasonable to deny every possible efficiency. Unfortunately, efficiency to them usually means less compensation to us. I understand this is about negotiation, and often compromise.

And yet I am concerned that The Company will play games with SCH, the same way they play games with pairings now, holding them out until after the bid period package is published. This LOA has no mechanism to hold The Company accountable when Scheduled CH vary widely from Actual CH. There is no "lookback" at how well the SCH projections worked out. While they claim they don't use a ratio of bodies to hulls, there must be some number or range of numbers that applies. We also have no direct protection from wide variations in BLGs. Even with the same number of SCH, different fleets could have very different average BLGs. I would prefer a limit on the BLG spreads between the fleets, but that's something that belongs in the larger context of Section 25 negotiations, the RLA negotiations for our revised CBA. Additionally, I would prefer a minimum number of pilots per hull.

I think it is reasonable to grant the efficiencies that could be gained by having a pilot fly a trip with legs on both airplanes, or to stay on a given trip when a change in guage occurs. I also think it is reasonable to rely on metrics and methods which would require as many B-767 vacancies as there would be on an identical fleet of, say, A330s. Allowing The Company to underman the B-767 is not in our collective best interest.

I also believe that it is not in our best interest to allow The Company to pay the narrow-body rate to an instructor who conducts a B-767 training event that doesn't involve an aircraft. If I were the Training Manager under this LOA, I would never hire a B-767 Flex Instructor, since a B-757 Flex can do eveything cheaper.

If The Company is in a hurry to complete this deal, I'd be happy to make arrangements for more negotiation sessions so we can complete the full CBA negotiations in an expedited fashion. We've been talking about it for 2 years now, so let's get it done.


Sorry, you said I was king -- I got carried away.





.

Malkovich

The FIRST time ALPA does it, it will then be construed as "common practice" by the company and any Arbitrator. So the answer is NEVER!

FDXLAG

As I said 75 BLG 68, 76 BLG 78. But we are protecting a couple of extra WB seats. A team and B team. Eventually a pretty sizable B team.

FXDX

I suppose settling for being a know it all has the appeal of being simple too.

How is that for a sound bite?

If my breaking the decision down to its most simple terms is so offensive to your massive intellect that you have to insult me then I guess I can live with that. I can assure you we are of the same generation.

Keep on winning friends and influencing people with your amazing intellect and endless charm, I'm sure you will sway the vote to your favor.

The fact that 75 pilots will fly 76 trips is a given and was determined the day the company bought the 76s. Its going to happen. Industry standard is combined bid packs and a 76 override.

The company has agreed to separate bid packs and "some" pure wide body seats based upon the projected credit hours that they plan to use the aircraft relative to the projected credit hours of the combined fleet. Will there be shenanigans? Of course, just as there would be with a combined bid pack.

So yes, I suppose I can "settle" for that if the NC feels that this is the time to come to terms. This will be the first LOA that I have voted for. Doesn't make me happy, just content that the NC has done well given the state of the industry and the economy. I have more faith in this edition of our NC and MEC than our last thank you very much. Time will tell if they have the legacy that the one you served on has.

RedeyeAV8r

LAG don't we have that now between Bid packs? The LOA changes nothing in that regard.

I recall with respect to A team, the MEM 757 and HKG 300 were serious A Teams.

I agree with you. Contractually we only have Min BLG guarantee protection of 68/85 there is NO limit on the high end.....sans 4 A 2 b.

I wish we had an Across the Board cap spread of 2-6 hours between Bid packs but we don't.

This issue should be addressed in Contract Section 4 negotiations.
This is a separate issue than introduction of a new Airplane under 26 K.

Popeye

If this LOA passes, would the NC have the ability to accept the support of the membership and then push to resume comprehensive CBA negotiations without formally consumating the LOA deal? Thereby, using this agreement as leverage for other meaningful CBA reforms.