FDX - When would you ...
04-10-2013, 06:47 AM
#81
Organizational Learning
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by TonyC
I asked the Negotiating Committee in yesterday's Webcast,
No criteria was given, nor was there an example offered of when it might be considered, or why the clause exists.
Is our seniority now being treated like another Scheduling Soft Parameter?
"What criteria will the Scheduling Committee Chairman use to allow B-767 flying in the B-757 bid period package?"
The response was an explanation of who the Scheduling Committee Chairman is, what his job description is, and what his experience is.No criteria was given, nor was there an example offered of when it might be considered, or why the clause exists.
Is our seniority now being treated like another Scheduling Soft Parameter?
Originally Posted by Check 6
I thought they said they could never see an example of it being used?
The above question begins at 23:17.
Here are some quotes:
"It's an option for the Association to exercise."
"The SIG deals with issues like this in line building and line construction every month through the entire bid pack building process and the execution of the bid pack."
"Is this something we're going to exercise on a routine basis? It's not even an option that we'll exercise on an infrequent basis. But it is an option when we see it fit to use that we can use."
He didn't say never, nor can I infer never from what he did say.
.
04-10-2013, 07:33 AM
#82
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Originally Posted by TonyC
I asked the Negotiating Committee in yesterday's Webcast,
"What criteria will the Scheduling Committee Chairman use to allow B-767 flying in the B-757 bid period package?"
The response was an explanation of who the Scheduling Committee Chairman is, what his job description is, and what his experience is.
No criteria was given, nor was there an example offered of when it might be considered, or why the clause exists.
Is our seniority now being treated like another Scheduling Soft Parameter?
Here are some quotes:
"It's an option for the Association to exercise."
"The SIG deals with issues like this in line building and line construction every month through the entire bid pack building process and the execution of the bid pack."
"Is this something we're going to exercise on a routine basis? It's not even an option that we'll exercise on an infrequent basis. But it is an option when we see it fit to use that we can use."
He didn't say never, nor can I infer never from what he did say.
.
"What criteria will the Scheduling Committee Chairman use to allow B-767 flying in the B-757 bid period package?"
The response was an explanation of who the Scheduling Committee Chairman is, what his job description is, and what his experience is.
No criteria was given, nor was there an example offered of when it might be considered, or why the clause exists.
Is our seniority now being treated like another Scheduling Soft Parameter?
Here are some quotes:
"It's an option for the Association to exercise."
"The SIG deals with issues like this in line building and line construction every month through the entire bid pack building process and the execution of the bid pack."
"Is this something we're going to exercise on a routine basis? It's not even an option that we'll exercise on an infrequent basis. But it is an option when we see it fit to use that we can use."
He didn't say never, nor can I infer never from what he did say.
.
If the MEC officers, committee chairs or other union volunteers step on it the MEC will let them go. Since the MEC isn't in session 24/7, this is how union work is done.
BTW, do you know what a Soft Parameter is and how they can modified? The provisions of this LOA are not the same. You are offering an apple vs. orange comparison.
04-10-2013, 07:39 AM
#83
Organizational Learning
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
OK, then I'll ask you, Gunter, again. Under what circumstances could you imagine using this provision? Why does this language exist?
You realize, I'm sure, that when you put a B-767 trip in a B-757 bid period package, it changes the SCH ratio, and therefore reduces the manning required in the B-767. So, why would you have that option, and when would you exercise it?
.
You realize, I'm sure, that when you put a B-767 trip in a B-757 bid period package, it changes the SCH ratio, and therefore reduces the manning required in the B-767. So, why would you have that option, and when would you exercise it?
.
04-10-2013, 07:45 AM
#85
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
WARNING: Thread Creep ... I didn't think this was worthy of a new thread.
Only in Tennessee ...
Witnesses: Man drove 90 mph with genitals hanging out the window - WJHL-TV: News: Weather, and Sports for Johnson City, TN
Only in Tennessee ...
Witnesses: Man drove 90 mph with genitals hanging out the window - WJHL-TV: News: Weather, and Sports for Johnson City, TN
04-10-2013, 07:46 AM
#86
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by TonyC
OK, then I'll ask you, Gunter, again. Under what circumstances could you imagine using this provision? Why does this language exist?
You realize, I'm sure, that when you put a B-767 trip in a B-757 bid period package, it changes the SCH ratio, and therefore reduces the manning required in the B-767. So, why would you have that option, and when would you exercise it?
.
You realize, I'm sure, that when you put a B-767 trip in a B-757 bid period package, it changes the SCH ratio, and therefore reduces the manning required in the B-767. So, why would you have that option, and when would you exercise it?
.
[Application Note: For purposes of the B767 SCH Ratio calculation, B757 SCH that are included in the B767 bid period package shall be counted as B757 SCH.]
This is why I think BLGs will get skewed. And why I don't think 1 or 2 bid packs makes a difference in the number of 76 pilots we could have.
04-10-2013, 11:22 AM
#88
Organizational Learning
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
I think your "you realize" comment is wrong. 767 SCH is based on 76 flying, not trips. See this comment in the LOA:
[Application Note: For purposes of the B767 SCH Ratio calculation, B757 SCH that are included in the B767 bid period package shall be counted as B757 SCH.]
This is why I think BLGs will get skewed. And why I don't think 1 or 2 bid packs makes a difference in the number of 76 pilots we could have.
I guess this means I have yet another question.
If an Out-and-Back consisting of 1 leg in a B-757 and 1 leg in a B-757 appears in the B-767 bid period package, how are the Scheduled Credit Hours accounted for? Is the entire 6 CH credited towards B-767 SCH, or only half? Or some other fraction?
If the same exact trip appears in the B-757 bid period package, how are the Scheduled Credit Hours accounted for? All B-757? All B-767? Some fraction?
The devil is in the details, right?
.
04-10-2013, 11:31 AM
#89
Organizational Learning
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by Gunter
I'll ask you again, Do you know what a Soft Parameter is?
Yes, I do know what a soft parameter is.Do you know what a simile is?
The Scheduling Committee Chairman is being given the discretion to include B-767 flying in the B-757 bidpack, and we've been given no justification as to why that might ever be appropriate. He can decide unilaterally when it's OK to abrogate seniority by placing wide-body flying in a narrow-body bidpack. If it makes his job of building bid period packages easier ... well ... Oh, well. I stand by my statement. Seniority is reduced to something that can be waived.
I seem to recall some people being upset by a certain city purity letter. Maybe that was a false memory ...
.
04-10-2013, 11:34 AM
#90
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by TonyC
I think you might be right. Damn that "Intent" language again.
I guess this means I have yet another question.
If an Out-and-Back consisting of 1 leg in a B-757 and 1 leg in a B-757 appears in the B-767 bid period package, how are the Scheduled Credit Hours accounted for? Is the entire 6 CH credited towards B-767 SCH, or only half? Or some other fraction?
If the same exact trip appears in the B-757 bid period package, how are the Scheduled Credit Hours accounted for? All B-757? All B-767? Some fraction?
The devil is in the details, right?
.
I guess this means I have yet another question.
If an Out-and-Back consisting of 1 leg in a B-757 and 1 leg in a B-757 appears in the B-767 bid period package, how are the Scheduled Credit Hours accounted for? Is the entire 6 CH credited towards B-767 SCH, or only half? Or some other fraction?
If the same exact trip appears in the B-757 bid period package, how are the Scheduled Credit Hours accounted for? All B-757? All B-767? Some fraction?
The devil is in the details, right?
.
Of course if we had only 1 bid pack then the 76 crew could fly it and get paid WB pay and the 75 crew could fly it and get WB pay. With 1 bid pack we would have more pilots getting WB pay.
With 2 bid packs we can have 1 crew get a lot of WB pay and 1 crew get a little NB pay. If you were ALPA what would you do, hint, they are doing it.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 04-10-2013 at 11:56 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
