FDX - When would you ...
 

The Letter of Agreement for Introduction of Boeing 767F Aircraft says,

A B757 bid period package shall not contain B767 flight segments, unless authorized by the ALPA Scheduling Committee Chairman.

OK, so put yourself in the shoes of the ALPA Scheduling Committee Chairman.

When would YOU authorize the inclusion of a B767 flight segment in the B757 bid period package?






.

Why don't you just ask him, Tony?

Ok so I am in his shoes now (hypothetically) and my answer is Never.

There is always going to be exceptional language in a contract to provide for unusual relief. I'm just glad we are the gatekeepers on this matter and not say the VP of flight operations or his designated representative.

+1...............;)

Correct me if I am wrong but in the video it is mentioned, if a 757 pilot flies a trip with one leg that has a 767 then the whole trip is paid at widebody? Hence, why would you not include a 767 segment as often as possible?

Just pay the 57 wide-body, and be done.

If it were only that easy.

We have too many here that think that would destroy their Quality of Life!

FP ... you've spent too much time reading stuff like this. I wonder if they both have about the same chance of happening :eek:

» Huffington Post seeks people who have had sex with aliens (15 have responded) JIMROMENESKO.COM

I asked the Negotiating Committee in yesterday's Webcast,
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?







.

I thought they said they could never see an example of it being used?

I don't recall that being said, but I could have missed it.

That would be an odd thing to say about a paragraph they went to the trouble of crafting and including in the LOA. If it would never be used, why would they go to the trouble of putting it in there? What they did emphasize was that the Scheduling Committee Chairman would only do that with coordination with the MEC Chairman, and with the entire MEC.







.

I can think of one situation:

Let's say we acquire some 76F's from another airline and the company has a bid to cover the manning for them. But, everyone on that bid needs to be trained (came from MD, 777, Airbus). This would put the manning all out of whack. Instead of penalty R24 lines the company asks to put 76's in the 75 bidpack.

So, we would use that provision of the LOA to provide relief to The Company for their manning problem by sacrificing the seniority of our pilots.

How many current and qualified, without weather restriction B-767 pilots do we have now, or will we have when the first round dial B-767 aircraft arrive? Those are the qualifications for the round dial Special Bid Award (SBA). I guess we'll have to exercise that option so we can put that flying in the B-757 bidpack where the only "current and qualified without weather restriction" pilots now exist. That would explain some of the bidding behavior on the last 2 B-757 vacancy postings.

Like I said, Seniority reduced to a Soft Parameter.










.

just a swag, but they will not need an SBA until the time comes we have classic and round dial aircraft flying at the same time, correct ? It would make sense that the first 767 pilots will be flying round dials as part of the normal bid pack flying. If the time comes to separate the flying out then they will bid out an SBA and there will be 767 pilots off high mins.

How is that sacrificing seniority? Those that bid it and need to be trained are already collecting WB pay. I guess you would rather have airplanes sitting idle and not producing revenue!

You are correct.
However, that rule is there to capture WB pay for any 757 pilots that end up operating the 767. It's not there to farm out 767 flying to the 757 pilots during the bidpack construction by including 767 segments in their pairings. That wouldn't really be protecting seniority and planning to fly 767s with 757 pilots is sort of what this whole LOA/Discussion is about avoiding, isn't it? The rule Tony mentioned is there to ensure all 767 flying stays in their bidpack/open-time unless we consent to something different.

That's not the way I read it.

LOA Para 2. Special Bid Award (SBA)





.

Put it this way. If we purchase more MD-11s, we have to post more vacancies for MD-11 pilots. That means more opportunities for pilots to advance their careers by bidding a wide-body airplane.

If we could just put the MD-11 pairings in the B-727 bidpack and allow those pilots to fly it for a little extra cash, that would deprive a certain number of pilots the opportunity to upgrade to a wide-body seat.

That's how it infringes on seniority -- the right to participate in Section 24 Filling of Vacancies postings.


The B-767 flying should be accomplished by B-767 pilots who are compensated at the wide-body rate for everything, not by a B-757 pilot who gets only the Credit Hour override.





.

Exactly, and this LOA guarantees some amount of widebody paying 767 seats for all pay purposes. Section 26 does not.

Simple enough?

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.






.

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?

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?







.

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

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

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. ;)





.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

We have that now but it is not designed to hurt one bid pack and it is not one way. If I told you that we could take ANC trips and move them to LAX anytime an ANC trip touched the mainland but we will never allow a LAX trip to be moved to ANC what would you say?

It's often difficult to sense tone in written communication; discerning tone on internet forums is decidely even more difficult.

I took the above to be snarky, and I responded in kind. First, I should not have taken offense and responded in kind. Second, I apologize if I misjudged your tone.

I believe there is a great risk in trying to oversimplify a contract document that is complex and multi-faceted. As our MEC Chairman is fond of saying, the devil is in the details.

It is the detail that went unnoticed until CRS uses it to make your life unpleasant. It is the detail that results in a grievance and a loss and another set of scales on the p.f.c. version of the Contract. The traps aren't hidden in the simple stuff -- they're buried in the complicated details.

From my perspective, "simple enough" is not necessarily a virtue. The problem is trying to make it too simple.






.

LAG I would say that already happens. maybe you need to look at the 3 MD-11 Bidpacks.

I see MEM and LAX trips moved to ANC that take 2 days to DH to CDG on the front end when a MEM or LAX pilot can DH in 1 day. Or an ANC crew that takes 2 Days to DH to Asia that an LAX crew can do in 1 day.
Good deal for the ANC Pilot but that is flying Taken from LAX. Those ANC bastards :)

I also see MEM or LAX pilots DH up to ANC to fly a trip to ASIA only to finish in ANC and DH back home or to sit Hotel STBY ..***?

During 4 a 2 b. MEM A300 guys were DHing to ASIA to FLY 1 or 2 legs and then DHing back home. Good Deal for the MEM crew. Taking flying from HKG those MEM A300 Bastards........:)

The point is Contractually there is no Claim NOW on flying for a specific Bid Pack. You want it on the 757.
I get it.

I see MEM 757 Crews DH to CDG for Hotel Standby.

I See CGN Crews DH to MEM to Fly AM out/backs to BHM... ***?

Whats your point? Those CGN Bastards.....:)

Now, If the MEM 757 crews got to DH to CGN and Collect WB pay, now that is something entirely different.

Many times when MEM/LAX crews DH to/from ANC, it's to cover one of our DPs (who cares!?.....It's a double DH!! :rolleyes:). That happened just last month.
If it's for hotel STBY, they're usually out of reserves or expect to be.

Yes and the pilots coming to ANC had no idea??? Well, they certainly did when they arrived and were given the explanation.

As for the other bases, I know in CGN’s case, the schedulers slipped once and said they were deadheading reserves over to sit "hotel standby." Then once the crew was there, they would get a phone call assigning them the DP. And we just sit there and do nothing about it.

What explanation? Once the schedulers know they can't fill a long DP in ANC, they tag on the front and back DHs and throw it into open time in another base.
It spends all of 5 minutes or less in open time and it gets scarfed up by the open time piranhas. They go fly it and probably talk to no one in skeds about why it suddenly showed up in open time.

To be fair, most guys probably don't know it's a DP but it wouldn't take much effort to find out. In a perfect world, we would try to maintain SA on the DPs in other bases and be on the lookout for the pig with lipstick on when it shows up in our own base open time. However, that's a serious pipe dream when guys can't stop flying the actual published DPs.

Agreed...

Explanation? Maybe I wasn't clear. They seem to think that because it wasn't a DP in MEM, it was ok to pick up. The explanation explains what you wrote. It's simple, they need to wake up, and thereby understand the consequences of their actions. They are hurting us all. We can't afford any more accidents.

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.

I can't see why you can't see that the clause is there to Protect WB seats. If the company could just move any 76 flying they wanted to into the 75 bidpack they would not need a 76 bidpack. All the flying could be in the 75 bidpack and we would be right back to their initial position - WB pay only when you fly a 76!

Also, how is putting MEM based flying in the CGN bidpack fair to the MEM pilots?

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.

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.