Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-06-2013, 12:30 PM   #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: MD11 FO
Posts: 112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2cylinderdriver View Post
Best of luck if someone attempts to file. I do not see a violation, not saying this was not done in the manner that would be most suitable, however in CBA issues the question is simply "is it legal"?

Your CBA reference on how a bid is processed was followed, nowhere in the CBA does it say the Company has to have any vacancy bids in the same one as an excess. They may have used a lame "excuse" to hide the real reason why they did the 2 bids vice one.

Good work in laying out the problem but I am quite sure anyone who attempts to file will find a legal wall that is not easily climbed.
Amazing that Tony didn't close this potential loophole when he was a rep.
seefive is offline  
Old 05-06-2013, 12:35 PM   #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
The Walrus's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: Socket Drawer
Posts: 1,706
Default

Depending on what intent was recorded during CBA negotiations concerning publishing and performing bids, I can see a legitimate grievance. There was not enough time allowed between the closing of 13-03 and 13-04 to make an educated decision for bidding as well as not having a training letter out for the 13-03 results. If I was one of the affected crewmembers I would definitely be supporting a grievance. The Company should have delayed the closing of 13-04 until 2 weeks after the training letter was published.
The Walrus is offline  
Old 05-06-2013, 12:41 PM   #13  
Organizational Learning 
Thread Starter
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2cylinderdriver View Post

Best of luck if someone attempts to file. I do not see a violation, not saying this was not done in the manner that would be most suitable, however in CBA issues the question is simply "is it legal"?

Posting 13-04 was not legal as a separate, stand-alone bid. It did not meet the requirements of a bid, as the prerequisite information was not (and is still not) available for pilots to consider in making their bidding choices. The Posting 13-03 Training Letter is still not published.

The Posting was not legal as a separate bid, and the VP of Flight Ops communicated his intention to conduct the vacancy and excess functions at the same time. Since it is not legal as a separate bid, and it was intended to be combined with the excesses of Posting 13-03, the two postings should be treated as a single posting and processed accordingly.


The combined lost earnings of the affected pilots should make this well worth pursuing to the end.


FDXLAG makes a good point about training order as well, and the violation is the foundation of another equally valid grievance. (He didn't mean to make the point, but he drew attention to it.) All of the pilots who were excessed involuntarily from their seats should train after the pilots who bid to relieve or bid to fill vacancies.






.
TonyC is offline  
Old 05-06-2013, 12:43 PM   #14  
Organizational Learning 
Thread Starter
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seefive View Post

Amazing that Tony didn't close this potential loophole when he was a rep.

You're so predictable!


It's not a loophole. It's a violation.

But you're right. I should have made it a rule that they can't violate the CBA. Or the rule about violating the CBA.


And another rule making it illegal to violate the previous rule.






.
TonyC is offline  
Old 05-06-2013, 01:46 PM   #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 7,981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyC View Post
...

FDXLAG makes a good point about training order as well, and the violation is the foundation of another equally valid grievance. (He didn't mean to make the point, but he drew attention to it.) All of the pilots who were excessed involuntarily from their seats should train after the pilots who bid to relieve or bid to fill vacancies.

.
Nice mind reading. Did you see where I pointed out in the 75/76 thread about the trick the company played on excessed pilots who now bid for the 76. I think the company is paying fast and loose with the rules. I also think they will get away with it.
FDXLAG is offline  
Old 05-06-2013, 02:05 PM   #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
2cylinderdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 732
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyC View Post
Posting 13-04 was not legal as a separate, stand-alone bid. It did not meet the requirements of a bid, as the prerequisite information was not (and is still not) available for pilots to consider in making their bidding choices. The Posting 13-03 Training Letter is still not published.

The Posting was not legal as a separate bid, and the VP of Flight Ops communicated his intention to conduct the vacancy and excess functions at the same time. Since it is not legal as a separate bid, and it was intended to be combined with the excesses of Posting 13-03, the two postings should be treated as a single posting and processed accordingly.


The combined lost earnings of the affected pilots should make this well worth pursuing to the end.


FDXLAG makes a good point about training order as well, and the violation is the foundation of another equally valid grievance. (He didn't mean to make the point, but he drew attention to it.) All of the pilots who were excessed involuntarily from their seats should train after the pilots who bid to relieve or bid to fill vacancies.






.
I am not sure I see any "prerequisite" information as being required, no where does it state in the CBA that I can see that you need a training letter published before another bid closes. You know the seat you are bidding from and other than that what else is required (per the CBA)?
2cylinderdriver is offline  
Old 05-06-2013, 03:09 PM   #17  
Organizational Learning 
Thread Starter
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2cylinderdriver View Post

... other than that what else is required (per the CBA)?

I'm headed to my son's band concert. The CBA is online.






.
TonyC is offline  
Old 05-06-2013, 03:11 PM   #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
The Walrus's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: Socket Drawer
Posts: 1,706
Default

Final is out.
The Walrus is offline  
Old 05-06-2013, 03:52 PM   #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
NoHaz's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: let it snow, let it snow, let it snow
Posts: 746
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCFDX View Post
The company did this for a reason. The big question is why. So far I can't figure out why, but then again I am a Marine.
I think it was to hold the FDA crewmembers. They did not get a -1 and therefore were not able to participate in the excess bid. They only got a shot at bidding out on the 04 bid of the 76 with limited secondaries.
NoHaz is offline  
Old 05-07-2013, 05:26 AM   #20  
Gets Weekends Off
 
2cylinderdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 732
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyC View Post
I'm headed to my son's band concert. The CBA is online.






.
sorry if you thought I was asking for you to look at the CBA for me, I posted that I did not see in the CBA any missing "prerequisites" like you did and was wondering what your references were.

I think this is a bad deal and could of been handled much better but at the same time I just do not see a violation is all I am saying.
2cylinderdriver is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FDX TA-Issues surrounding grievance 10-02 Underdog Cargo 51 03-11-2011 12:56 PM
Corporate Air Bleeds Purple vagabond Cargo 83 07-14-2010 08:27 AM
FDX Sick Usage Grievance fedupbusdriver Cargo 44 01-11-2009 06:03 PM
FDX Q: Recent Grievance Settlemet & ANC Lindy Cargo 26 05-18-2008 06:13 PM
FDX: BKO grievance boxhauler Cargo 5 03-19-2008 09:39 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:47 AM.