FDX - When would you ...
03-30-2013, 05:46 AM
#51
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
Don't worry I will, I switched to the 75 when I realized BLGs were going to be out of whack. Right now we have guys bidding 75 Capt because they realize that between QOL, higher BLGS, more open time, and more C/O they can make the same money as a WB capt on reserve.
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?
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?
In fact: a 2 yr NB CA would still make more money!
Last edited by MaxKts; 03-30-2013 at 05:59 AM.
03-30-2013, 05:53 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
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. ?
03-30-2013, 06:00 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by RedeyeAV8r
Do you really want the MEC to make a Contractual requirement that Says any flying in a Narrow Body can't be transferred to a Widebody?
Originally Posted by RedeyeAV8r
Lag Contractually no Bid packs are guaranteed anything above the Contractual Min of 68/85. I don't hear you complaining that an Equal Seniority Peer of yours on the 727 is making 6-10 hours less than you are each month currently, but interestingly you are concerned about potential 767 BLG's being higher than yours. I agree it isn't fair for you to make more BLG each month than your same seniority FO peer in the MEM 727 as is happening now. But that is how it is.
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.
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.
It will not take a big change in the number of 75 trips to 76 trips to effect the blgs. 5% would probably result in a blg delta of 8 hours. Depending on the ratio of manning between the 75 and 76. The higher the 75 to 76 staffing ratio the higher the blg delta.
But this time I am really done I will save my I told you so's for a couple of years down the road.
03-30-2013, 06:04 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
Don't worry I will, I switched to the 75 when I realized BLGs were going to be out of whack. Right now we have guys bidding 75 Capt because they realize that between QOL, higher BLGS, more open time, and more C/O they can make the same money as a WB capt on reserve.
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?
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?
If and when the 767 gets a higher average it will likely be stable...and much smaller. There is less training cost in maintaining a proper 767 to 757 ratio. If it doesn't stabilize there will be a penalty that will demand more 767/757 trained crew members than required. If it continues perhaps grievance and arbitration. I'm sorry if you don't like it. Very soon the 757 will be the junior bidpack and it is being handed a higher average during the transition. I'm not selling the LOA plan, just pointing out it will be somewhat different than it is now. You know this to be true too. Lazy 18 month training cycles currently let management create BLG deltas that serve little purpose but to keep pilots out of training. It prevents us from following the "bid what we want to fly" advice that filters down. "Random" training date changes that start within a month of bid close and continue throughout the 18 month cycle let them fine tune the planned disparity.
Those taking advantage of the 757 higher average know what they're doing and will bid out if the gravy train comes to a stop. That is the right of seniority. I do not begrudge their pay now but will not bend over backwards to maintain the BLG delta they (you) are taking advantage of. That special deal is not worthy of protection.
Last edited by Gunter; 03-30-2013 at 06:22 AM.
03-30-2013, 06:32 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
It will not take a big change in the number of 75 trips to 76 trips to effect the blgs. 5% would probably result in a blg delta of 8 hours. Depending on the ratio of manning between the 75 and 76. The higher the 75 to 76 staffing ratio the higher the blg delta.
But this time I am really done I will save my I told you so's for a couple of years down the road.
But this time I am really done I will save my I told you so's for a couple of years down the road.
In the 2006 contract we handed the company a greater High/Low spread of 13 hrs in a single bidpack. We also have a min guarantee that could be raised if pay differential is considered a cornerstone issue. What does the MEC say?
Management uses their flexible range and places value on it. It will cost us to make positive changes to it.
03-30-2013, 07:13 AM
#56
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
More examples for LAG:
Using the 7yr NB CA vs the 15 WB FO and assume a 10 hour BLG delta. The 15yr WB FO only makes $269.32 more a month!
To make the example more realistic use 10yr pay for both. The BLG split would need to be 16 hours (68 NB CA to 84 WB FO) before the pay becomes equal!
The BLG difference will not be enough to encourage "down bidding"
Using the 7yr NB CA vs the 15 WB FO and assume a 10 hour BLG delta. The 15yr WB FO only makes $269.32 more a month!
To make the example more realistic use 10yr pay for both. The BLG split would need to be 16 hours (68 NB CA to 84 WB FO) before the pay becomes equal!
The BLG difference will not be enough to encourage "down bidding"
Last edited by MaxKts; 03-30-2013 at 07:24 AM. Reason: corrected my math :(
03-30-2013, 07:51 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by MaxKts
More examples for LAG:
Using the 7yr NB CA vs the 15 WB FO and assume a 10 hour BLG delta. The 15yr WB FO only makes $269.32 more a month!
To make the example more realistic use 10yr pay for both. The BLG split would need to be 16 hours (68 NB CA to 84 WB FO) before the pay becomes equal!
The BLG difference will not be enough to encourage "down bidding"
Using the 7yr NB CA vs the 15 WB FO and assume a 10 hour BLG delta. The 15yr WB FO only makes $269.32 more a month!
To make the example more realistic use 10yr pay for both. The BLG split would need to be 16 hours (68 NB CA to 84 WB FO) before the pay becomes equal!
The BLG difference will not be enough to encourage "down bidding"
03-30-2013, 09:37 AM
#58
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
You don't know much about QOL or C/O.
If you are bidding c/o for the money then you don't have as much time off. If I can make enough at 68 hours and have more days off - then my QOL is better!
Me thinks, you are upset because the "gravy train" may be derailed and you may have to re-evaluate your position in life!
03-30-2013, 05:11 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by MaxKts
That's all you got?
If you are bidding c/o for the money then you don't have as much time off. If I can make enough at 68 hours and have more days off - then my QOL is better!
Me thinks, you are upset because the "gravy train" may be derailed and you may have to re-evaluate your position in life!
If you are bidding c/o for the money then you don't have as much time off. If I can make enough at 68 hours and have more days off - then my QOL is better!
Me thinks, you are upset because the "gravy train" may be derailed and you may have to re-evaluate your position in life!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
