FDX-Apr-757-MEM-DPs
03-24-2015, 09:37 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,191
FDX-Apr-757-MEM-DPs
Outstanding focus on safety in Mar!
Nothings changed in April but the pairing numbers
Straight from the SIG Notes...
The MEM-BFM-QRO-MEM dispute continues to be built by the Company.
Our objections and concerns have not changed.
The PSIT feels this is a poor design with High CFIT risk and potential fatigue risk factors that deserve a revised pairing design.
Please document any issues; good, bad or otherwise as we continue down the CBA dispute pairing process with QRO.
#208 / 31MAR & 1APR
#209/7,8,9 APR
#209/ 15,16 APR
#209/ 21,22,23 APR
03-24-2015, 10:17 AM
#2
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
How can that be? Our MEC Secretary-Treasurer (Chairman wannabe) picked up a couple of these out of Open Time. (He lives near Mobile, so that must have made the Disputed Pairing less onerous for him.) I would have thought his Pilot Ops Reports and sleep logs would have convinced The Company to fix the pairing. Maybe he had no objections. <sigh>
.
.
03-24-2015, 11:23 AM
#3
"blue collar thug"!
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
Originally Posted by TonyC
How can that be? Our MEC Secretary-Treasurer (Chairman wannabe) picked up a couple of these out of Open Time. (He lives near Mobile, so that must have made the Disputed Pairing less onerous for him.) I would have thought his Pilot Ops Reports and sleep logs would have convinced The Company to fix the pairing. Maybe he had no objections. <sigh>
.
.
03-24-2015, 11:27 AM
#4
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
It has been brought to my attention (through interesting paths) that my previous post might be somewhat confusing. Since our illustrious MEC Secretary-Treasurer is currently a B-727 Captain (you read that right, not a misprint), how could he have picked up B-757 Disputed Pairings from Open Time? The fact is, he picked up B-727 Disputed Pairings with the same disputed sequence when FedEx actually operated B-727s.
He was instrumental in changing MEC Policy Manual guidance to allow MEC Officers to not only remain current, but to remain proficient in their primary job, flying a FedEx airplane. It's a bit of a puzzle why he's no longer even qualified (much less current or proficient) in an airplane FedEx actually operates.
.
He was instrumental in changing MEC Policy Manual guidance to allow MEC Officers to not only remain current, but to remain proficient in their primary job, flying a FedEx airplane. It's a bit of a puzzle why he's no longer even qualified (much less current or proficient) in an airplane FedEx actually operates.
.
03-24-2015, 12:57 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 397
Oh come on Tony, it's really hard to fly two flights since FEB 2013... 
He needs a few more days of rest. Heck our former SCP was flying at least once a month...
I think these guys should be head of OPA (Office Pilots Assn).
He needs a few more days of rest. Heck our former SCP was flying at least once a month... I think these guys should be head of OPA (Office Pilots Assn).
03-24-2015, 01:09 PM
#7
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by FDX28
I think these guys should be head of OPA (Office Pilots Assn).
.
03-24-2015, 01:42 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 732
Originally Posted by TonyC
How can that be? Our MEC Secretary-Treasurer (Chairman wannabe) picked up a couple of these out of Open Time. (He lives near Mobile, so that must have made the Disputed Pairing less onerous for him.) I would have thought his Pilot Ops Reports and sleep logs would have convinced The Company to fix the pairing. Maybe he had no objections. <sigh>
.
.
PS how would a flight that does not even layover in a pilots hometown area be a positive thing, as you imply?
03-24-2015, 03:58 PM
#9
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by 2cylinderdriver
This sure looks like you, TonyC, are not following your own advice from the thread on vol/dft? Kettle meet black.
Originally Posted by 2cylinderdriver
PS how would a flight that does not even layover in a pilots hometown area be a positive thing, as you imply?
.
03-24-2015, 04:07 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 732
Originally Posted by TonyC
Don't be silly. Surely you can see the difference between flying extra, and flying Disputed Pairings. We have a long history of asking pilots to support the SIG PSIT by avoiding Disputed Pairings.
You'll have to ask the Secretary-Treasurer why he didn't support the SIG PSIT. I can't even imagine why.
.
You'll have to ask the Secretary-Treasurer why he didn't support the SIG PSIT. I can't even imagine why.
.
So you are saying it is not a contractual right to fly a disputed pairing? Why would I ask the Sec/Tres, as you must know why a pairing that does not even layover at his hometown is somehow a good deal? So tell us why.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
