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 05-07-2013, 06:07 AM   #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
tennesseeflyboy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 413
Default

No sense in getting lathered up about it, this will end up in arbitration, the Company will prevail although in the midst of the improprieties, the Union has no teeth when it comes to the arbitration process ...................
tennesseeflyboy is offline  
Old 05-07-2013, 06:39 AM   #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Gunter's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Default

Management will argue that if they included everything in one bid they would have included extra excesses. Also, the affected crewmembers number less than 70 because of the secondary awards in the 767 bid.

Management can excess as many, or as few, people as they want.

Let's roll back the clock - How about using a 727 SO excess bid to fill vacancies in CA and FO seats? Vacancies that appeared only after a subsequent excess out of those seats exceeding the number of SO's that bid to relieve into them.

If any group of bids was ripe for grievance that was it.

Last edited by Gunter; 05-07-2013 at 06:49 AM.
Gunter is offline  
Old 05-07-2013, 06:54 AM   #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Gunter's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyC View Post
You're so predictable!

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.

.
You can't triple stamp a double stamp!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RKDifoyra8
Gunter is offline  
Old 05-07-2013, 09:23 AM   #24  
Gets Off
 
md11phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Nordskog Industries Field Technician
Posts: 688
Default

Your whole argument rests on you proving that 13-03 and 13-04 were a single posting. Good luck with that.

I commend you for trying to find a creative way to keep those 70 guys from being excessed, but contractually it doesn't hold water.(IMHO)
md11phlyer is offline  
Old 05-07-2013, 09:38 AM   #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Gunter's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Default

oh, nevermind
Gunter is offline  
Old 05-07-2013, 02:09 PM   #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tennesseeflyboy View Post
No sense in getting lathered up about it, this will end up in arbitration, the Company will prevail although in the midst of the improprieties, the Union has no teeth when it comes to the arbitration process ...................
Yep, I remember BC briefing; we needed to pass the HKG LOA back in 06 because we had an labor unfriendly administration and there was no way we would win a grievance with the current group and the current NMB. So how's this new labor friendly administration/NMB working out. Have we won anything, ever?
MD10PLT is offline  
Old 05-07-2013, 03:13 PM   #27  
Organizational Learning 
Thread Starter
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunter View Post

Also, the affected crewmembers number less than 70 because of the secondary awards in the 767 bid.

I think the number is closer to double 70. Each of the wide-body captains and first officers unneccesarily excesses precipitated another excess in the narrow-body captain, wide-body first officer or narrow-body fisrt officer seat in which they landed. I'd bet there are close to 70 potential grievants that landed in the 57FM seat alone.

Depending on where the 767 secondaries began, they may trigger additional grievants.






.
TonyC is offline  
Old 05-07-2013, 03:14 PM   #28  
Organizational Learning 
Thread Starter
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunter View Post

You can't triple stamp a double stamp!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RKDifoyra8

I knew you had a sense of humor somewhere in there.






.
TonyC is offline  
Old 05-07-2013, 04:52 PM   #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 934
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tennesseeflyboy View Post
No sense in getting lathered up about it, this will end up in arbitration, the Company will prevail although in the midst of the improprieties, the Union has no teeth when it comes to the arbitration process ...................
Well, they are a little busy with more important issues right now.....


Last week, ALPA opened an Association-wide competition called Project Wingman. Participants will be competing individually to recruit new supporters for the PAC. The top two pilots who generate the most support for ALPA-PAC will win the grand prize: an expense-paid trip to DC where they’ll stay at an exclusive hotel and enjoy a VIP DC political experience, meeting with decision makers and Washington leaders.

All participants who recruit at least three new PAC members or who convince three current PAC members to raise their contribution club level will earn their PAC wings. These individuals will earn the title of Flight Lead and be recognized in the 2013 Roll of Distinction. Check out the competition rules and bookmark our rankings page. And then, start recruiting your wingmen. Remember, you’re facing off against all U.S. ALPA members, so starting early and being aggressive is important. Sign up for the PAC today to start earning your recruits. Current PAC supporters can earn their first recruit by raising their own club level.

Recruit your wingmen. Earn your wings. Grow the PAC.
Rock is offline  
Old 05-08-2013, 08:52 AM   #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 7,981
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.
Looking at the final for 13-04 my guess is the company wasn't being sinister they were just trying to make sure that current 75 guys had a shot at the 76. Saves a lot of training cycles in the only training program they are short slotted in.
FDXLAG 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 05:14 PM.