757/767 reserve pay
#21
...My first question (asked elsewhere) is where in the LOA does it say that?
My next question (also asked elsewhere) is what prevents The Company from making them all B-757 standby periods, and paying wide body pay only when they actually operate a B-767?
Another question would be, would the rules be the same for Base Standby periods? He specified Field Standby -- is that significant?
.
My next question (also asked elsewhere) is what prevents The Company from making them all B-757 standby periods, and paying wide body pay only when they actually operate a B-767?
Another question would be, would the rules be the same for Base Standby periods? He specified Field Standby -- is that significant?
.
I'm sure we would all appreciate answers to the great questions you have come up with from someone with the authority and knowledge to answer them instead of just question after question on APC which, although probably not your intent, can come across as your way of saying "the MEC doesn't know what it's doing".
#22
Those are great questions. Why ask the APC crowd? Why not get those answers directly from our union while the vote is open? Really.
I'm sure we would all appreciate answers to the great questions you have come up with from someone with the authority and knowledge to answer them instead of just question after question on APC which, although probably not your intent, can come across as your way of saying "the MEC doesn't know what it's doing".
I'm sure we would all appreciate answers to the great questions you have come up with from someone with the authority and knowledge to answer them instead of just question after question on APC which, although probably not your intent, can come across as your way of saying "the MEC doesn't know what it's doing".
#23
Those are great questions. Why ask the APC crowd? Why not get those answers directly from our union while the vote is open? Really.
I'm sure we would all appreciate answers to the great questions you have come up with from someone with the authority and knowledge to answer them instead of just question after question on APC which, although probably not your intent, can come across as your way of saying "the MEC doesn't know what it's doing".
Rather than add something of value to the discussion, attack the speaker.
Right, AFW_MD11?
.
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
I agree that it seems fuzzy -- that's because it's not explicit. One thing we've all shouted loud and clear in Negotiating Committee Surveys and polls, etc., is that we want clear, unambiguous language that can't be used against us later. We're sick and tired of having to go to The Company's website to look for the picture of the scales to find the results of the grievance that are used to interpret some paragraph in a way contrary to what we thought the clear language meant.
I would interpret the LOA to mean you get "62 hours of 757 pay, 6 hours of 767 pay, and be leveled for 6 hours of reserve." You don't get leveled for either specific airplane since they're in the same reserve pool.
I hope that's correct.
It could be more clear with an example like Timeoff2fish just presented.
That reminds me, ... EXAMPLES, APPLICATION NOTES ... It looks like we've found a way to get rid of "Intent Language" by calling it something else.
.
I would interpret the LOA to mean you get "62 hours of 757 pay, 6 hours of 767 pay, and be leveled for 6 hours of reserve." You don't get leveled for either specific airplane since they're in the same reserve pool.
I hope that's correct.
It could be more clear with an example like Timeoff2fish just presented.
That reminds me, ... EXAMPLES, APPLICATION NOTES ... It looks like we've found a way to get rid of "Intent Language" by calling it something else.
.
It does give an example. But wait, you just said you don't like examples. You really can't get over being recalled, can you?
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
I believe that everyone who flies a certain airplane should be on the same pay scale.
In other words, everyone who flies a B-767 should be on the wide-body pay scale -- all the time.
What this LOA does is allow The Company to treat all B-757 pilots as part-time B-767 pilots on narrow-body pay, and to pay them what amounts to an hourly override whenever they need to use them as a part-time B-767 pilot.
It's not wide-body, it's not narrow-body, it's a sub-scale of wide-body.
Of course, that constitutes an efficiency for The Company -- money they save. They save it by withholding it from our paychecks.
.
In other words, everyone who flies a B-767 should be on the wide-body pay scale -- all the time.
What this LOA does is allow The Company to treat all B-757 pilots as part-time B-767 pilots on narrow-body pay, and to pay them what amounts to an hourly override whenever they need to use them as a part-time B-767 pilot.
It's not wide-body, it's not narrow-body, it's a sub-scale of wide-body.
Of course, that constitutes an efficiency for The Company -- money they save. They save it by withholding it from our paychecks.
.
Tony, you agreed that the company could implement a single bid pack and pay everyone 75 pay unless they touched a 76 under our current CBA. That is why we wouldn't be able to litigate if the LOA failed.
#26
The company will play games, it's what they do.
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 556
As for base airport standby's that is a bit more fuzzy, since in a place like MEM they are used for more than just manning a spare jet. It is a good question to ask and the NC to answer. What bid pack open time will they show up in, for make-up ? For reserve assignment will they all be NB, except of course when a WB reserve gets one? Needs clarification, but we all know that not every single scenario is outlined in a CBA or LOA otherwise you would never see a stopping point to actually cement a deal.
#28
I'm not the only one who doesn't like "Intent language." Most pilots polled and surveyed rank getting rid of intent language very high on their list of improvements they would like to see in our CBA.
I got over being recalled a long time ago. Apparently you haven't.
So, explain to me why the MEC Chairman and Council 22 Officers have told us that litigation would be probable.
.
#29
Field Standby's are only created for an actual spare aircraft that is intended to be "manned", we should know what the GOC scheduled aircraft type is and the pairings should be put in the bid pack for the type. If they "claim" a standby, in say IND, is a 757 yet every time they launch the crew it is on a 767 then I would suspect there will be some discussion about that.
If I was doing that for the B-757 but there was no B-757 sitting on the ramp, how could I verify that the Standby period was actually for the B-757?
As for base airport standby's that is a bit more fuzzy, since in a place like MEM they are used for more than just manning a spare jet. It is a good question to ask and the NC to answer. What bid pack open time will they show up in, for make-up ? For reserve assignment will they all be NB, except of course when a WB reserve gets one? Needs clarification, but we all know that not every single scenario is outlined in a CBA or LOA otherwise you would never see a stopping point to actually cement a deal.
.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post