Posting 13-03 is out.. Let the Excesses begin
04-19-2013 | 09:25 AM
#131
done, gone skiing
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,603
Likes: 0
From: Rocking chair
....Or maybe everyone should put down the keyboard, take a deep breath, and wait for the next bid due out shortly. All this movement, as seen on practice bid one will be totally different from what transpires at the end of the next bid. 
04-19-2013 | 09:32 AM
#132
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
From: MD11 FO, ANC
No they won't. How hard is it to fly to DXB vs TUL? The hard part is not cruise. The reality is MEM-TUL would go senior and the junior guys would be complaining and the multiple time zones. I highly doubt Capt 64.5yo loves flying to DXB vs. LAX. What's the most senior at the Majors? Domestic 777 from IAD to SFO I suspect.
04-19-2013 | 10:10 AM
#133
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,212
Likes: 22
From: Two Wheeler FrontSeat
Star,
Maybe he took it a bit personal since you said "you guys should have".
That is kind of pointed and personal hinting on "you f'd up". It's ok to tell someone what they should have negotiated but it's not ok to tell them where you think they should work?
Not sure if you know our numbers but less than 20% of the crew force is on a narrow body, and less than 10%(right now) are getting NB pay. Also, our seniority on each a/c would be totally different if we went to a single pay rate. Many junior captains wouldn't even be close to holding their current seat. As has been stated by a few already, it would be much more beneficial for the company to have
a single pay rate to save on training costs, so let them bring it to the table. Changing the rules in the middle of the game could get quite messy. what do we do, have one giant open system bid? Imagine
that training cycle cost.
Maybe he took it a bit personal since you said "you guys should have".
That is kind of pointed and personal hinting on "you f'd up". It's ok to tell someone what they should have negotiated but it's not ok to tell them where you think they should work?
Not sure if you know our numbers but less than 20% of the crew force is on a narrow body, and less than 10%(right now) are getting NB pay. Also, our seniority on each a/c would be totally different if we went to a single pay rate. Many junior captains wouldn't even be close to holding their current seat. As has been stated by a few already, it would be much more beneficial for the company to have
a single pay rate to save on training costs, so let them bring it to the table. Changing the rules in the middle of the game could get quite messy. what do we do, have one giant open system bid? Imagine
that training cycle cost.
04-19-2013 | 10:31 AM
#134
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
Thanks for a good explanation package. It all work out fine for now but the question what happens when FDX decides to grow the narrow body fleet alot larger than the wide body. Let's say 60% narrow 40% wide. Would all the entire crew force have a different out look? Just a question guys no bashing or finger pointing
Most companies have multiple pay rates. Why doesn't UPS have a better deadhead policy?
04-19-2013 | 10:34 AM
#135
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 0
04-19-2013 | 10:47 AM
#136
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 0
I think Starship is correct. The pay scales were established by ALPA a few generations ago and serve only to complicate bidding and run up training costs for the company. This excess bid is a fine example of redundant training costs and seat movement. Excessing out of the 777 to then move pilots into the 777. Ridiculous!
One pay scale that only differentiates left seat and right seat and longevity would eliminate much of this musical chairs: guys getting knocked out of seats within one year of having been trained in that seat. What a waste of money!
One pay scale that only differentiates left seat and right seat and longevity would eliminate much of this musical chairs: guys getting knocked out of seats within one year of having been trained in that seat. What a waste of money!
ALPA didn't complicate it. Ask the UAL or DAL pilots if they would like the 737 to pay the same as a 747, or a B-717 to pay the same as a A-330. Ask JETBlue guys or USair guys if they would like their E-170/90's to pay the same rate as their 737's or A-320's. I bet they all would like it, trouble is I bet if they ask their MGT this, their Managements wouldn't quite agree, or they would say, sure we will be glad to lower the pay on the 747, A-330 or 737 or A320.
Rates were based on the ability of the airframe to generate revenue. The higher the revenue potential, the higher the rate.
Now in FDX's case, Excesses have absolutely nothing to do with pay rate. It is a Company decision to excess, not ALPA's. It is the Company that decides how many Pilots per seat in what Aircraft or what domicile they need or are willing to accept, not ALPA's.
In this recent case, the Company is parking the 727. A company decision, not ALPA's.
Approx 180-200 727 pilots are going to flush into a stagnant system.
If they all elect go to the 777 then the it is the Company's decision to allow it without displacing anyone, Not ALPA's.
That has nothing to do with Pay rate. That has everything to do with Seniority. I do not know too many people that want to abandon the seniority system.
ALPA did negotiate the requirement to have an excess Bid when the Company feels a seat or Domicile is overmanned, in lieu of the Company being allowed to just bump and flush the bottom 35-50 pilots down to whatever aircraft the Company wants them in, or worse. That little tidbit saved our bacon in 4 a 2 b. Just sayin.
04-19-2013 | 11:58 AM
#137
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,052
Likes: 0
From: 3B
I'm a slow learner ... maybe one of you smart computer geeks can explain this one? The 'Excess Posting' published today says ...
Programming logic cannot currently manage vacancies and excesses in one bid, so we need to run separate vacancy and excess bids. A second bid, Posting 13-04, will be published the third week in April offering vacancies associated with the introduction of the B767.
I understand that the economy isn't great and we all want (need?) a proactive company that is able to adapt to changing times. I don't believe there is anything sinister in their proposed downsizing. Can anyone explain why our (legitimately) high tech company can't figure out how to manage a single bid that takes aircraft going away and new arriving aircraft all on the same bid!*? A High School kid could write the program.
It will be interesting to hear what ALPA thinks.
Programming logic cannot currently manage vacancies and excesses in one bid, so we need to run separate vacancy and excess bids. A second bid, Posting 13-04, will be published the third week in April offering vacancies associated with the introduction of the B767.
I understand that the economy isn't great and we all want (need?) a proactive company that is able to adapt to changing times. I don't believe there is anything sinister in their proposed downsizing. Can anyone explain why our (legitimately) high tech company can't figure out how to manage a single bid that takes aircraft going away and new arriving aircraft all on the same bid!*?
A High School kid could write the program. It will be interesting to hear what ALPA thinks.
04-19-2013 | 12:29 PM
#140
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,804
Likes: 0
Looks like 18 lines in the MEM bid pack with European flying. Also per the FCIF the CDG A300 spare is changing to a B757.
Last edited by USMCFDX; 04-19-2013 at 12:40 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
vagabond
Hangar Talk
0
02-20-2007 02:16 PM
Southerncowboyz
Major
2
10-31-2006 07:53 PM
