FDX - Why B-767 Instructors?
 

Two questions:

First, do you understand the implications of this line of the LOA for Introduction of Boeing 767F Aircraft?

It shall not be a violation of Sections 11.L.1., 11.M.1., or 11.N.2. when a B757 instructor pilot (Line Check Airmen, Flex Instructors, and Standards Check Airmen) performs instructor duties in or operates a B767 training device or aircraft, or vice versa.

Sections 11.L.1., 11.M.1, and 11.N.1. state that Line Check Airmen, Flex Instructor/Proficiency Check Airmen, or Standards Check Airmen respectively must hold and be currently qualified in the Captain crew status of that airplane. In other words, if you are an MD-11 Captain, an A300 Captain, or a B-777 Captain, your CMV1, CMV2, and CLOE will be administered by a pilot who has the seniority to be an MD-11, A300, or B-777 Captain, respectively. This provision of the B-767 LOA will allow someone who does not have the seniority to hold a B-767 seat to administer those same events. A B-757 Captain without the seniority to hold B-767 Captain will have the ability to give instruction and checkrides to B-767 Captains.

One of the three stated objectives for this LOA was "Honor Seniority". I believe this provision violates that objective.


Second, why would The Company ever hire a B-767 Flex Instructor? Again, from the 767 LOA:

Instructor pilots who instruct in or operate B767 aircraft shall be compensated as provided in paragraph E.3.

If a B-757 Instructor conducts a training event in a B-767 Sim, that's not a B-767 trip, so it's paid at the narrow-body rate. Only when he flies a B-767 TRIP will he get that rate. That B-757 could be on a Pay Only line, conduct a month of B-767 training events, and be paid the entire month at the narrow-body rate. Given the economic advantage of using only B-757 Instructors to teach all B-757 AND B-767 events, why would The Company ever hire a single B-767 Flex Instructor?







.

If all the Reserves are going to 57 pilots (from previous thread) and now all the instructors are going to be 57 pilots - the only way to make the SCH to Manning ratios work would be to put all 75/76 flying in the 76 bidpack and all secondaries, reserves and pay only's in the 75 bidpack. Now the company is paying WB pay for all the flying and a large portion of the secondaries and reserves. I just don't see that happening.

Because the core curriculum will be in a 757, up to and most probably including a majority or all IOE. Only a few diff sims and probably a few 767 IOE legs. Even if they worried about your point, there will probably be enough senior Capts current 757 instructors who bid over to cover that. The common type rating makes your point moot in the eyes of the FAA.

Of course I would LOVE to know where the heck you and anyone sharing your viewpoint were when each and every guy who was an Initial Cadre instructor on the 757 took it in the pooper courtesy of the Union not giving a crap that they took a WB to NB pay cut to stand up that aircraft. And due to the hosed up rules regarding instructor passover, most were 1 to 2 years to get WB pay back. i didn't hear any holler at the Union about that travesty. Nope, as a matter of fact, the Union's position was that IF the company tried to honor the promises made to the instructors and to protect their WB pay, the Union would grieve on behalf of anyone senior to them not getting POP.

Any of them that can't hold 767 are due a little (lot) payback in my eyes, so they're welcome to it.

You mean when guys were making back-room deals with JL which were extracontractual, and which would have never stood the light of day had they been incorporated in an LOA submitted to the membership for ratification? He told you he was talking to the union, when in fact he was not.

So, you think the B-757 Instructors deserve anything they can get as payback for the disservice you perceive from the B-757 standup?






.

No, I mean when the they met with and had many conversations with the Union leadership at the time. All Initial Cadre are required by FAA regs to be accepted/approved by the FAA. The FAA, strangely, doesn't give a hoot about either seniority or the CBA. They DO care about demonstrated instructor background. All instructors who were even close to being acceptable in the eyes of the FAA were getting WB pay, either long time 72 guys on POP or instructors already holding WB seats. Show me ANY provisions in the CBA that would allow the requirements of the FAA to be met without cutting the pay of the guys who did the work.

There were plenty of meetings with the Union. They elected to do nothing other than ultimately offering to grieve if the Initial Cadre were kept whole. Seniority rights, my butt. All DW and the cronies were worried about was having a bargaining chip via the 757 IC instructors.

Backroom deals? Hardly. Im sure the crew force would have supported those guys keeping their pay to stand up the 75, but a LOA like THAT was never going to happen. You can throw out the CBA red herring all you want, but unless you can work around FAA regs and the fact the CBA has ZERO provisions for pay protecting instructors who stand up said new NB, you're just blowing smoke.

The only back room deals going on were the Machiavellian ones over on Kirby who saw the Initial Cadre as bargaining chips.

The FAA does not determine our work rules. Chief Pilots can't make 'em up either. When you were promised benefits that were not described in our CBA, that should have been a red flag. He made promises he couldn't keep, and we were not about to abrogate everyone else's seniority to allow him to keep his promises. What we DID do was negotiate an LOA which would provide temporary relief for the initial cadre and then revert back to seniority-honoring rules. And then came §4.A.2.b., and that LOA along with the B-777 LOA, the Afghanistan and Iraq Flying LOA ... the stuff that got wrapped up in our latest CBA ... all got shelved.

That's my recollection.

But let's assume for a moment that your recollection is accurate, and I'm all screwed up. You think the B-757 Initial cadre was screwed because they had to follow the CBA. Therefore, you think the potential B-767 Instructors deserve to be screwed as payback?


That's a perverse perspective of fairness, in my opinion. Everybody gets screwed the same, so it's fair. Why not look for benefits for everyone instead of detriments for everybody?






.

Noooo... As I said, you make a 767 pilot via either a core 767 program OR via a core 757 program with some differences training. There will be an adequate number of 757 instructors able to hold 767, so this won't be a problem.

What bothers me is the great concern on your part for "seniority" in the case of guys who have nothing invested while you/they were perfectly willing to disregard seniority rights of guys who invested a huge amount of effort bringing the 757 on property.

And no, I don't THINK they were screwed, I KNOW they were screwed and the individuals turning the screwdriver were over at Kirby. So apparently, you would have prefered no Initial Cadre and no 757 on property because of an oversight in the CBA. After all, who on Kirby could EVER have envisioned standing up an a new NB aircraft?! And after acknowledging this shortcoming, the only proper action would be to do nothing. Well, other than threaten to grieve if the company honored their commitment to keep the IC instructors whole.

I think it would be fantastically instructive to show how it all went down. Since there were LONG time Union guys in that IC mix, including committee chairmen, it's utterly preposterous to posit that the Union didn't know. I guess the truth only hurts when it's convenient?...

See, there's the problem in a nutshell. The Company made a commitment to do something outside of the CBA, which would have violated seniority rights for everyone else. If we had put those terms in an LOA and sent it out for ratification it would have failed miserably.

When it came down to negotiating an LOA that could have worked, The Company wanted permanent relief from provisions which protect seniority. The Association agreed to TEMPORARY relief to allow the standup of the initial cadre. What The Company in the person of one JL promised you was something completely different, and The Association had no obligation to honor the deals he made with you. In fact, The Association has the obligation to protect the seniority rights of the entire membership.

And it looks to me like this LOA will undercut The Company's incentive to hire B-767 Instructors when they can do the exact same job much more cheaply with B-757 Instructors. It's all about keeping costs low these days, so tell me why they would hire the more expensive of the two?






.

I'm sure you're correct and I'm wrong. If offered a LOA that kept the individuals whole who built the 757 program from the ground up, and the alternative was a 757 introduction delayed 1 to 2 years and presented with the FACT that every single person on that project was ALREADY entitled to WB pay, well I'm sure the crew force would have shot it down as being completely unreasonable.

And how was your willingness to allow temporary abrogation of seniority rights for those guys more pure hearted than the company's version of until they could hold WB again. Kind of like being a little pregnant... "Well, we're ok with contract language change in this case, but it can't be dependent on keeping you guys whole. Just long enough to get the milk from the cow." Since all were back on WB pay within two years anyway, the company's offer to continue WB pay was exactly the same as what you profess (incorrectly, but I'll be generous and attribute it to a poor memory), it seems that OUR union would have been happy to protect the pay for the instructors who were training OUR crew for their new airplane. Especially since they were the short-sighted morons who couldn't envision a new NB aircraft ever showing up at FedEx and maybe have some pay protections built in for the guys digging the trenches...

Seems BC and DW did pretty well out of their stay there. Rig changed to favor them. Aircraft available to bid without a pay rate. FDA LOA that was super, then crappy, then super and would go senior anyway. Not to mention the thumb in the collective eye of the crew force regarding Age 65. Yep, I remember that regime fondly...

Which copy of the 757 Instructor LOA are you looking at? I have mine, and it ain't what you're talking about.

Your anger towards anything Webb is noted.






.