Fdx pbs
01-31-2015 | 01:04 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
Don't need a new contract to improve the VTO automation process, that's an option mgt has in our current contract.
Sure would be nice to be able to submit an unlimited number of specific trip requests, like you can for CIA....versus the 10-15 odd options we get now
From Sec 25, VTO construction
If the parties jointly agree to a new automated secondary line process which puts the pilot in direct contact with automation capable of generating secondary lines, such automation shall include the ability to assign available R-days/blocks before trips based on a pilot's bids.
Sure would be nice to be able to submit an unlimited number of specific trip requests, like you can for CIA....versus the 10-15 odd options we get now
From Sec 25, VTO construction
If the parties jointly agree to a new automated secondary line process which puts the pilot in direct contact with automation capable of generating secondary lines, such automation shall include the ability to assign available R-days/blocks before trips based on a pilot's bids.
01-31-2015 | 01:09 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 0
From: 777 Captain in Training
Obviously you are not reading a word I am writing. More scheduling power for us is exactly what I am saying. You guys hate the current VTO system but refuse to talk about changing it. If you get stuck with a VTO line that is all r days why do we let scheduling tell us what days we will sit. Why can't we pick our days via seniority.
01-31-2015 | 01:55 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
What I am trying to say is fix the current vto process and keep the current percentages. Then in 5 years after we know all the tricks and interpretations that the company will pull they can ask for more vto lines to be built in the next contract. We are saying the same thing I want proof first that it will be what they say not promises.
01-31-2015 | 02:06 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 0
From: 777 Captain in Training
Do not quite understand your position you know they will simply screw us and you want to accept it hoping for better? They have a history of not necessarily doing the right thing. So if that is the direction they want go then they need to invest making vtos like their purposed new system and SHOW us it is not the killer we think it is. Then in the future we can up the percentages in the next contract. I do not think it is too much to ask.
01-31-2015 | 03:13 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
Do not quite understand your position you know they will simply screw us and you want to accept it hoping for better? They have a history of not necessarily doing the right thing. So if that is the direction they want go then they need to invest making vtos like their purposed new system and SHOW us it is not the killer we think it is. Then in the future we can up the percentages in the next contract. I do not think it is too much to ask.
01-31-2015 | 07:12 PM
#46
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 Galley Biatch
Not sure why this keeps being mentioned. There is zero option for us to enter binding arbitration in the RLA framework unless we accepted it ourselves. 100% voluntary and it would be categorically the biggest mistake in FedEx Union history to do so.
01-31-2015 | 10:30 PM
#47
Banned
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 798
Likes: 0
From: 757 Capt
No I want hard scheduling rules with financial fines to the pilot (not the union) when they cheat. I want hard contract language that says when they can and can't claim insufficient reserves. And if they add stbys to manipulate the system then they have to pay pilots to sit stby. I want real time trip trading. When I am the number 3 VTO I want to be able to build my schedule third and if it is all R Days I want to pick the R days from the available pool. To get that we will have to negotiate.
I think you want PiBS.
I give up.
More VTO lines is not a good thing..........period.
Pipe
02-01-2015 | 03:41 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
I want all of that too. I do not want more VTO lines. By definition, the number of VTO lines should be driven by bare necessity, not company desire. A certain number of VTO's are necessitated by our vacation system. That is the concept that has been lost in this discussion.
I think you want PiBS.
I give up.
More VTO lines is not a good thing..........period.
Pipe
I think you want PiBS.
I give up.
More VTO lines is not a good thing..........period.
Pipe
02-01-2015 | 07:08 AM
#49
Banned
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 798
Likes: 0
From: 757 Capt
Why must there be more of either?
VTO and R line quantity should be driven by nothing other than necessity. Allowing either just for company "convenience" shouldn't be an option. Honestly, with the exception of a necessary number of reserves and enough VTOs to cover the vacations (that were bid for 6 months or more in advance), the rest is sheer scheduling laziness.
Pipe
VTO and R line quantity should be driven by nothing other than necessity. Allowing either just for company "convenience" shouldn't be an option. Honestly, with the exception of a necessary number of reserves and enough VTOs to cover the vacations (that were bid for 6 months or more in advance), the rest is sheer scheduling laziness.
Pipe
02-01-2015 | 07:26 AM
#50
New Hire
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Correct me if I am wrong. But, I have not flown or talked with any pilot that would like to see an increase in VTO lines. Period.
Do you bid VTO? Don't you see how they are? It's a crap shoot.
Put this issue too rest already.
Do you bid VTO? Don't you see how they are? It's a crap shoot.
Put this issue too rest already.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
