Adlerdriver

Maybe I'm not reading the LOA properly. I haven't voted yet, so I'm definitely still in explore mode.

What is the scenario where a 757 pilot doesn't get credit for a 767 trip?

How could a 757 pilot "fly nothing but B-767 trips all month" and be filling a wide-body seat at narrow body pay? Are you saying that just because he's not going to get the extra until the mid-month check the following month? We get our makeup, draft and overage next month too. Is that really such a huge issue?

I don't understand your full time wide-body vs. part time wide body comment. We can't make the company buy widebody jets. There's no guarantee that every MD-10 and Airbus are going to have a 767 in their place. If they decide to use a 757 to replace an MD-10 or Airbus along with the 727s, there's not much we can do about that.

Maybe we need to figure out how many pilots FedEx would need to staff the projected 767 fleet if we had no 757s and compare it to how many we may lose due to the dual fleet efficiencies. I have no clue what the difference would be but it seems a reasonable assumption that there probably is a loss. That said, there's no way you can reasonably characterize every 757 pilot as a part-time WB pilot replacing a full-time WB pilot.

I think I'm okay with a tradeoff to ensure that every 767 is operated at WB pay and an appropriate number of pilots can bid their complete schedule/sick/vacation at the WB rate.

The fact that a NB 757 pilot can fly a 767 trip off reserve, draft or via a revision and get WB pay seems like a positive to me. Maybe I'm not thinking about this right but, I'd rather be a part time WB pilot than a full time NB pilot. That's probably the juniority talking.

As I said, I'm still undecided. There are some good questions still unanswered. Hopefully the Wed night webcast will be worthwhile.

Gunter

Why do you think we still have two pay rates? This kind of attitude.

PastV1

I don't even know how to start a comment on this.

HKFlyr

I just hope people do read it, and do ask questions...we have been bitten by "intent", "the assumption", "in the spirit of" language before. The day we stop reading and asking questions isn't good...although we have all been guilty of that. Hopefully we will be motivated somehow to change.

The questions I have seen here and ones I have myself, have made it clear to that we are giving up some stuff that will be financial efficiency for the company, i.e. leverage, negotiating capital, etc...whatever you want to call it.

I keep hearing this LOA protects seniority. I feel no matter what, litigation, arbitration, mediation, what every road a dispute would go down, that would be protected. Pay is another issue. But there is always risk in negotiations. Seniority would be protected anyhow, as it is the overriding tenant of all our scheduling, bidding, and every facet of life on a seniority based system.

Big Deal to me...one of the several reasons I voted no: We give up DRAFT pay for widebody pilots in favor of a "widebody" override for narrowbody pilots. Company would never have to draft a 767 pilot again. They have a pool of 757 pilots happy to get this override - but will they really if they are on reserve - how will it end up on pay during a leveling situation? Or will there be another method that is used that isn't spelled out during implementation, because we didn't think that far ahead. My 2 cents worth.

And again, we put off fixing 4.a.2.b, accepted fares, FDA housing language, etc etc of the other issues in negotiations that we have put off since we took the two 3% percent pay raises. Lets do the whole deal and stop putting it off. This should be an overall part of that.

I just hope unlike last LOA's that people read it and they ask questions...and they vote, one way or the other.

And no matter how careful you read it and understand it, the final product you live with still varies...as I have found out with the many holes in the current HK FDA rules. All isn't what it seems. Intent doesn't mean squat to a bean counter under directions from their boss to cut costs at every turn, and the association doesn't have language to enforce it. But hey, I get my 5 diet cokes...(this week - I'm waiting for it to be X sodas per block hour rule...LOL)

I even heard second hand that a former contract administrator (still in management) talked to a former association chairman and couldn't believe that we would sign off on this...but that is what I heard from the Limo driver in Guangzhou.

frozenboxhauler

All very well said, HK.
fbh

TonyC

A B-757 pilot sits reserve all month and doesn't touch a B-767 -- no credit for a 767 trip. He gets two paychecks at the narrow-body rate.

Another B-757 pilot sits reserve all month and flies nothing but B-767 trips, all the way up to his RLG. He also gets two paychecks at the narrow-body rate, and then a "bonus" check the 15th of the next month.

A third pilot, a B-767 pilot, sits reserve all month and doesn't fly a lick. He gets two paychecks at the wide-body rate.


It's not an issue at all if you discount the time value of money and the contributions to your retirement plans. The B-767 pilot gets all the money up front, and the money gets to work right away in his retirement plans. The B-757 pilot gets to wait to see his money go to work.


You hit the nail on the head there -- there is a number lost due to "dual fleet efficiencies", i.e., the ability to use a B-757 pilot in their place. That number represents the number of pilots who will not upgrade to B-767 through a Section 24 Vacancy Posting. If all the "efficiency" was done by that same number of warm bodies, you could say that only those B-757 pilots are the part-time wide-body pilots. However, the work will be spread throughout the fleet. For example, the first draft call should go to the most junior B-757 pilot -- he's a B-767 part-timer, part of the wide-body "sub-scale."



I guess we'll just have to discuss what the "appropriate" number is. How many pilots denied Section 24 upgrades is appropriate?


Better a part-time wide-body pilot than a full-time narrow-body pilot, true. Better still to be a full-time wide-body pilot. The more of those slots we have, the sooner you can get there.






.

nakazawa

SIRS -

I think the key is - it takes NO 767 pilots to man the 767. NONE. NADA. The 767 can be manned with 757 pilots and differences training. This LOA offers a cryptic formula based on SCH that the Company can control and manipulate to pay WB pay and build 767 trips at their discretion. I would say there are no guarantees. The Company will do everything they can to minimize their expenses. That's what companies do. It's just business. If you're all good with that, the voting decision is easy.

Why would we even need a 767 bid? During your next training cycle you get differences training and you're good to go. Talk about a HUGE cost savings to the Company. In fact, preserving seniority would be easily accomplished with just one equipment crew list, with all crews qualified on both.

When you fly, your ACARS knows what jet you're in - it goes to crew pay - and it's all done. Nice, neat, and sanitary. You get WB pay when you deserve it, the rest of the time you're sitting on NB pay.

Very Respectfully,
Nakazawa

Check 6

I am firmly in the 32% camp...even have the bag tags to prove it! But I am confused by most of this.....I think the above quote says it all. This LOA is only one I have seen that I think is good for us. If you are on the 76 you get all the pay your seniority entitles you too. If you are on the 75 you get what you are entitled to with the added bonus of making WB pay once in awhile.
I think if we turn this down the deal will be much worse. Not a scare tactic. It's just that the Co can have all flying done by one group.....everything, vacation, reserve, etc at NB pay and only a difference pay when you actually fly a 76 trip....which is what most other CO's do now.....
I have already voted....
I hope everyone votes...YES or NO...but Vote!

Adlerdriver

So, your point here was related to the following point about pay delay? If so, isn't Pilot 2 above still getting credit for his 767 trips? (just two weeks later than the 767 lineholders). It seems a bit alarmist to try to describe this situation the way your do.

I have to concede that a two week delay in pay for the reserve 757 results in some amount of loss. The pre-tax pay received late for a 15 year Captain is ~$2500 (4wk month) and ~$3100 (5wk). There are also B-fund contributions based on this amount which should be in the ballpark of ~$200 and the pension is less than that. I'll embarrass myself if I try any more public math. However, even if a generous 10% annual return is assumed on those investments, it's obvious that a two week delay in putting that money to work isn't a significant amount per year.

I'm on board with the rest of your concerns re: the loss of WB seats. I don't know if we can accurately quantify those losses and even if we could, it may be hard to get a better deal to recapture them (without giving up something of equal value). We lost WB seats in the MD-10 conversion process too; we just didn't have a vote on how that happened. Dual type ratings obviously have efficiencies that we would love to mitigate, but at the same time, I think we need to be reasonable about what we're trying to deny the company in that area.

Gunter

All that's missing is how to get there from here. I'd like to see world peace too. Can you work that in there somewhere?