MaxKts

Typical ALPA! You obviously don't know who I am! I have not voted in favor of anything from ALPA or FPA. This is the first time I feel we don't have a choice. Why, because we haven't cleaned up any of the permissive language of the past. Also, this LOA is not about protecting the top 70%, it is about keeping the bottom 30% (second class citizens as you like to call them) from growing to 60%!

Personally, I feel if you want the chance to fly a 76 - bid it. I do not expect to see one as a 75 pilot!

MD11Fr8Dog

Uh, I was never a NB guy!

md11phlyer

If you really think ALS chooses airframe based on what the pilots' pay rate is you've got a pretty inflated sense of worth. And you're a moron.

MaxKts

This is what I predict will happen. They will underman the 76. They will move all the 75 flying into the 76 bidpack. This way all flying will be at WB rates or WB draft and all the reserve will be at NB rates unless actually called out. The 76 pilots will average 400K a year. The 75 pilots will qualify for food stamps and welfare but no one cares because they are junior and we all know ALPA is all about the senior pilots.

Nitefrater

97% correct.... You left out the part that it's all a plot to minimize LAX's blg.

He is, after all, self identified as a victim class, and is therefore entitled to "special" protections. The Company is certain to lose the lawsuit.

.... Oh,

FDXLAG

Says the guy who cant figure out why the company would want to add 76 trips to 75 legs even though they write an loa that does just that.

Again you morons go back and read my posts, this is an OK loa but I predict that 75 BLG will be significantly less than 76 blg because of it. That is all I have said. The only counters to my argument are (1) Why would the company want to stick 75 flying and 76 flying together and (2) Tough sh1t. Max has made both arguments at the same time.

Never before have we taken flying from one bid pack and stuck it in another with the intention of unbalancing blgs. When you were NB guys back in the day, (1) 727 BLG was not restricted to 68 hours per bid pack and (2) your upgrade prospects were a lot brighter than they are today.

Pakagecheck

Lag,
You have referenced this in a few posts. I went back and read the LOA verbiage again. Where does it specify that the 75 will be restricted to 68 hrs or the unbalanced blgs. Can you tell me the reference or is this just your interpretation of what will happen. No sarcasm, just tryin to understand.

As far as the 76 blg being higher, both of the last 2 new airframes that have entered service with us has had higher blgs. That flying had to come from somewhere. If you don't think that they took flying out of the 72 bid pack for the 75, I am sure there are a few slave ship crew members that would disagree.
Pakage

Adlerdriver

What does this even mean?

RedeyeAV8r

I've been here 20 years. BLG has always fluctuated up or down each month.

In the older days FDX operated much more lean with respect to manning.

Simply put, the monthly BLGs are purely a function of manning.

If the seat is undermanned or light, BLGs are higher. If manning is fat or sufficient, BLGs are lower.

New airplanes are usually always undermanned as a function of training.
Old airplanes that are targeted for bone yards are usually fat and thus BLGs are the lowest, ref DC10 and now 727.

The 757 is and has been a growing airplane. They were very light manned for quite a while and thus had high BLGs. Some pilots seem to think these higher than AVG BLGs are a Birth right.

Now that 757 training has finally begun to catch up, their BLGs will gradually lower to normal as the manning gets more in line. The 757 still has a lot to look forward to. SA flying, more European flying and much more domestic as it takes over most of the 727 cities.

Why will the company take the bid pack of a new airplane that will be under manned initially and pump more time into it especially 757 time that will pay WB? Why move tons of 757 time into the unnecessarily to the 767?

Yes the 767 might and probably will have high BLGs as the program picks up steam, but that will be because it is light manned, not because of the LOA, which has nothing to do with BLGs.

If we want to fix the BLG spread unfairness, we need ti have a Contractual Minimum staffing formula for all seats as well as have specific contract language that says " Monthly AVG BLGs Shall not vary by more than xx hours in all seats in all aircraft in all domiciles"

LAG, I would support you on that, but that is a whole different ball of wax than the 767 LOA.

FDXLAG

Sorry add 76 legs to 75 trips thus making them 76 trips.