Originally Posted by FDXLAG
(Post 1381893)
I do see that, so that means 75 guys should gets stuck with 5 hours less per month on average or is 10 hours your limit?
|
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
(Post 1381893)
...How much less flying per month should 75 guys suck up to protect WB seats? I can live with what ever answer you give just so we acknowledge some large percent of the pilot group is getting screwed.
To answer your MEM question it is not fair to one particular group but it averages out the blg across the similar types. I think MEM 75 BLGs have been consistently higher lately. When MEM guys were flying CGN trips CGN BLGs were consistently higher. BLG is one measure of over or under manning. More importantly, trip swapping can and has happened in either direction. |
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
(Post 1381893)
I do see that, so that means 75 guys should get stuck with 5 hours less per month on average or is 10 hours your limit? How much less flying per month should 75 guys suck up to protect WB seats? I can live with what ever answer you give just so we acknowledge some large percent of the pilot group is getting screwed.
Why is it ok for MEM based bidpacks to be so unevenly manned without this LOA? Is it because you are on the 757? If you're really worried about more pay you should bid wide body. Narrow body flying is about QOL or some passover pay gig. |
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
(Post 1381893)
I do see that, so that means 75 guys should get stuck with 5 hours less per month on average or is 10 hours your limit? How much less flying per month should 75 guys suck up to protect WB seats? I can live with what ever answer you give just so we acknowledge some large percent of the pilot group is getting screwed.
If there is a consistent difference between 757 and 767 BLGs, isn't it possible that it's a result of the type of flying being done by the two aircraft? We are talking about the narrow body replacement for the 727. Hub-turning to somewhere within a ~2 hour radius of MEM isn't going to generate the same credit hours as taking a 767 to Europe or South America. Last year, the 777 BLGs were significantly higher than the MD-11. Tough to avoid when a significantly number of their flights are 4-man, over 12 hour long haul. I didn't really see that as someone's attempt at a screw job for me. |
Below is a cut and paste from our LEC's letter. This point is regarding pilots from other domiciles deadheaded in to fly a DP:
12. By adding international deadheads to give a CGN trip to MEM, the trip is technically no longer a disputed pairing. Ultimately, if voluntarily flown by a MEM crew, it does not count against the process. |
Cloud, I re-posted this in the disputed pairing thread. If this came from an LEC letter then they have changed the policy on disputed pairings!
Originally Posted by CloudSailor
(Post 1381995)
Below is a cut and paste from our LEC's letter. This point is regarding pilots from other domiciles deadheaded in to fly a DP:
12. By adding international deadheads to give a CGN trip to MEM, the trip is technically no longer a disputed pairing. Ultimately, if voluntarily flown by a MEM crew, it does not count against the process. |
Originally Posted by Gunter
(Post 1381918)
Looking at the April MEM Bidpacks - 757 avg BLG is 94 while MD/Airbus is 85:30-86:00. You are taking advantage of the high average right now LAG, at the expense of a couple of other, more senior, bidpacks. You might have even gotten some draft and volunteer over the last 12 months.
Why is it ok for MEM based bidpacks to be so unevenly manned without this LOA? Is it because you are on the 757? If you're really worried about more pay you should bid wide body. Narrow body flying is about QOL or some passover pay gig. But the point, is the reason the blgs are different for the Bus and the MD is because those seats are overmanned and shrinking. There is not a MEC and Company policy that says we will take bus and MD flying and give it to the 75/77 and never give it back. We will soon have a policy that says this in the 75/75. BLGs fluctuate between bid packs, that is life. But when a 76 F/O on reserve is making more that a 75 Capt on reserve because one has an rlg of 74 and the other a rlg of 68 are we protecting seniority or encouraging down bidding? |
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
(Post 1381881)
But it is not one way only. MEM guys flew CGN trips before CGN guys flew MEM trips. The MEC has not come out and said we will never move ANC trips to LAX like they have said we will never move 76 trips to the 75 bid pack. Big difference, that means 75 blg can only go down; 76 blg can only go up. The intent of cgn guys flying mem trips is to balance the blg. The result of the 76 guys snagging all of the combined trips is to unbalance the BLGs.
When we intentionally move trips now it is to be fair and balance the blgs. When we do it with the 75/76 it will be to make one group earn less per month while another earns more per month and no I am not talking WB/NB payrates. I will not comment on this again, but I can't believe you don't see the difference. When we do it now balance = fair, when we do it then unbalanced = unfair. You seem to have some wild idea that the Company is going to move massive amounts of 757 Flying (which is paid at NB rates) into the Potential WB 767 Bidpack. I guess we just disagree on the punitive financial incentive for the Company to do this. Why would the Company Plus up a WB Bid Pack if they can pay less if it is flown in the NB bid pack? That makes zero Financial sense. Yes I agree they will have some 757 to make lines, but again it is all at WB Rate. Now I grant you, the LOA says this can be done, but I just don't see why you think the company will do it on a massive scale the way you think, or why even if they do it, why it is a Bad thing (assuming your 767 conspiracy is true) since it will be paid at widebody rate. More flying in the 767 means more WB seats for everyone. Maybe that FO just Senior to you in the 757 will bid up and thus you will move up in the 757 if that is where you want to stay. Isn't that a good thing? More Higher paying seats than lower paying seats? It almost sounds like you have WB envy. Either you can't hold WB now or don't think you will be able to hold a when the 767 is posted (but I suspect you can or will if you choose) or You don't want to move up to a WB due to seniority reasons. A personal Choice for sure and that is fine. If this LOA passes, either Bid it so you can partake of this Hypothetical High 767 BLG or be happy being Senior in the 757 Seat, perhaps much more senior. |
Originally Posted by MaxKts
(Post 1382038)
Cloud, I re-posted this in the disputed pairing thread. If this came from an LEC letter then they have changed the policy on disputed pairings!
|
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
(Post 1381939)
Lag,
If there is a consistent difference between 757 and 767 BLGs, isn't it possible that it's a result of the type of flying being done by the two aircraft? We are talking about the narrow body replacement for the 727. Hub-turning to somewhere within a ~2 hour radius of MEM isn't going to generate the same credit hours as taking a 767 to Europe or South America. Last year, the 777 BLGs were significantly higher than the MD-11. Tough to avoid when a significantly number of their flights are 4-man, over 12 hour long haul. I didn't really see that as someone's attempt at a screw job for me. I don't think ALPA is purposely out to screw anyone, it is just the mindset of the Union. And I don't think it is protecting that many seats. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:47 PM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands