FDX- MEM 757 Disputed Pairings - Dec 14
11-17-2014, 07:27 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,191
FDX- MEM 757 Disputed Pairings - Dec 14
View/Add Opens Wed
If you must adjust your schedule in Dec, please do it safely!
Straight from the SIG Notes:
Disputed Pairing Process: Pairings specific to peak were the focus of our discussion.
High block and high duty trips operating through the critical period were analyzed.
The difficulty of these trips may be amplified if there are significant delays during our peak season.
The SIG was able to fix some of these pairings, but a few remain disputed.
#304 - 8 Dec
#305 - 15 Dec
#476 - 3 Dec
#480 - 16 Dec
#874 - 2,3,4,9,10,11,16,17,18, 23 Dec
Please support your SIG!
Safety thru Unity,
VR,
DLax
If you must adjust your schedule in Dec, please do it safely!
Straight from the SIG Notes:
Disputed Pairing Process: Pairings specific to peak were the focus of our discussion.
High block and high duty trips operating through the critical period were analyzed.
The difficulty of these trips may be amplified if there are significant delays during our peak season.
The SIG was able to fix some of these pairings, but a few remain disputed.
#304 - 8 Dec
#305 - 15 Dec
#476 - 3 Dec
#480 - 16 Dec
#874 - 2,3,4,9,10,11,16,17,18, 23 Dec
Please support your SIG!
Safety thru Unity,
VR,
DLax
11-19-2014, 03:20 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,191
For those asking why....
BFM-QRO, pairing 874, is a previously disputed pairing. We are continuing to dispute this pairing design based on risks associated with operating two legs critical into a high CFIT/minimal ATC international destination.
BTV-SYR-EWR-DTW, pairings 304/305, has layovers as short as 10+35 before operating night duty periods as long as 10+52. We are disputing this pairing design due to cumulative fatigue concerns.
Pairings 476/480 are disputed for limited rest opportunities prior to night duty periods as long as 11+27.
...Please support your hardworking SIG
BFM-QRO, pairing 874, is a previously disputed pairing. We are continuing to dispute this pairing design based on risks associated with operating two legs critical into a high CFIT/minimal ATC international destination.
BTV-SYR-EWR-DTW, pairings 304/305, has layovers as short as 10+35 before operating night duty periods as long as 10+52. We are disputing this pairing design due to cumulative fatigue concerns.
Pairings 476/480 are disputed for limited rest opportunities prior to night duty periods as long as 11+27.
...Please support your hardworking SIG
11-19-2014, 09:36 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: B777
Posts: 564
Get it via Text Msg
Good time (& place) to remind folks to signup for the union's Texting/Email Service. Currently there are only 177 MEM757 folks signed up to received Disputed Pairs info 
. Spread the word! Do it yourself and ask everyone on the crew bus if they are signed up.
You can sign up for bidding reminders, disputed pairs info and more. Go to the union home page and look for the big green "C" button to signup.
. Spread the word! Do it yourself and ask everyone on the crew bus if they are signed up.You can sign up for bidding reminders, disputed pairs info and more. Go to the union home page and look for the big green "C" button to signup.
11-23-2014, 02:48 PM
#5
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by DLax85
For those asking why....
BFM-QRO, pairing 874, is a previously disputed pairing. We are continuing to dispute this pairing design based on risks associated with operating two legs critical into a high CFIT/minimal ATC international destination.
BTV-SYR-EWR-DTW, pairings 304/305, has layovers as short as 10+35 before operating night duty periods as long as 10+52. We are disputing this pairing design due to cumulative fatigue concerns.
Pairings 476/480 are disputed for limited rest opportunities prior to night duty periods as long as 11+27.
...Please support your hardworking SIG
BFM-QRO, pairing 874, is a previously disputed pairing. We are continuing to dispute this pairing design based on risks associated with operating two legs critical into a high CFIT/minimal ATC international destination.
BTV-SYR-EWR-DTW, pairings 304/305, has layovers as short as 10+35 before operating night duty periods as long as 10+52. We are disputing this pairing design due to cumulative fatigue concerns.
Pairings 476/480 are disputed for limited rest opportunities prior to night duty periods as long as 11+27.
...Please support your hardworking SIG
If they continue that pairing as it is during the low fall/winter WX, something bad is likely to happen.
Pipe
11-23-2014, 04:44 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,191
Originally Posted by pipe
Did QRO on reserve last week. Worst experience in 20yrs of airline flying. Flight safety, ASAP, fatigue, and POR complete.
If they continue that pairing as it is during the low fall/winter WX, something bad is likely to happen.
Pipe
If they continue that pairing as it is during the low fall/winter WX, something bad is likely to happen.
Pipe
Thx for taking the time to do the right thing and file all those reports --- especially the ASAP
The FAA ASAP rep will get to read that one --- hopefully by multiple reserve pilots --- and ask the company why they're continuing to ignore their own pilots safety concerns
???
True safety programs are proactive, not reactive
Let's not allow these type of pairings to become part of our normal bidpack
Fly Professionally - Fly Safely - Fly Well Rested!
11-27-2014, 04:24 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 767 CA
Posts: 1,876
Originally Posted by DLax85
Secondary Lines complete in both seats
100% focus on safety
Very nice....very, very nice!
Let's keep focused all month
100% focus on safety
Very nice....very, very nice!
Let's keep focused all month
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
