"Lie Flat" Seats
12-14-2015, 04:53 AM
#111
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,191
Originally Posted by Busboy
Yes, ALPA did get it changed to "Active Crewmembers". But, from what? The way it's been presented in the courts is that ALPA had the language changed to only include active pilots...Otherwise every retired, age 60 to 65, pilot would have had a right to come back into their seats with their seniority.
Wouldn''t that have been sweet.
Wouldn''t that have been sweet.
Words matter
"Active Pilots" does not equal "Active Flight Deck Crewmembers"
The second is broader to include FEs, and this is what allowed it to count for our guys 60-65, who were no longer working as pilots, rather they were working as FEs
As equally important, it did not include anyone 60-65 who were not "active" on the flight deck -- e.g. Sim Instructors, Flight Managers, etc
Other airlines besides Fedex & NWA/Fedex did have people like that, though they may not have been on the seniority list any longer
The other airline pilot groups were not in favor of these guys returning, so the word "active" was used.
If the final verbiage had actually been "active pilots", not "active flight deck crew members" there would have been no retroactivity for the FEs at Fedex, who were between 60-65
Bottom line -- the change in the law clearly had a broader/larger stagnation affect on the pilot group at Fedex
Of course this is all just a history lesson now
Let's move forward collectively to ensure proper enforcement with our current CBA
Fly Safely - Fly Professionally - Fly Well Rested!
Last edited by DLax85; 12-14-2015 at 05:09 AM.
12-14-2015, 11:59 AM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 777 Captain in Training
Posts: 1,457
Originally Posted by ClutchCargo
How do you see this affecting our D/H's?
12-14-2015, 12:37 PM
#113
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by Tuck
My question that has never been answered (kudos to Tony for putting out some great leg work in attempting to back in 2013 though), is why did ALPA think that a bill changing the mandatory retirement age would somehow protect the CBA written defined benefit guarantees or that they needed protection? The two have nothing to do with each other and the rationale that Tony presents here does nothing to make one thing otherwise.
Here is the guarantee that the ALPA supported age 65 bill that Tony writes from his earlier post (see link above) that is pertinent:
"Ensuring that, under a defined benefit retirement plan, a change to the Age 60 Rule will not reduce a participant’s or beneficiary’s accrued benefit nor reduce a benefit to which a participant or beneficiary would have been entitled without enactment of such a change to the Rule."
Here is the only verbiage I can find from the law in question HR 4343 Fair Treatment of Pilots https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...ZLyLRw&cad=rja that even mentions something close to what he's talking about
"‘‘(f) AMENDMENTS TO LABOR AGREEMENTS AND BENEFIT
PLANS.—Any amendment to a labor agreement or benefit plan
of an air carrier that is required to conform with the requirements
of this section or a regulation issued to carry out this section,
and is applicable to pilots represented for collective bargaining,
shall be made by agreement of the air carrier and the designated
bargaining representative of the pilots of the air carrier."
I'm not sure how that protects the defined benefit plans since no changes to any DB plan by any carrier would be required in order to conform with this law.
I might be wrong and generally don't want to take on Tony with his knowledge and memory but I'm not seeing any connection whatsoever here.
Originally Posted by Tuck
Tony - there is absolutely nothing in the law that passed that offers the protection you discuss. Nothing. The actual law is very short - I offered a current link to it. Find me the part that provides the protections you speak of. I know what you have said it provides but show me what part of the law speaks to it. I may have missed it but I tried to post the only section I could find that was even close and it says absolutely nothing close to what you are saying.
I've highlighted some phrases in the excerpt of the law you posted. Put them together and you form this sentence:
"Any amendment to a benefit plan of an air carrier shall be made by agreement of the air carrier and the designated bargaining representative of the pilots of the air carrier."
And here again is the third bullet point of ALPA's priorities as defined in the Executive Board Resolution to drop opposition to the regulated age change:"Ensuring that, under a defined benefit retirement plan, a change to the Age 60 Rule will not reduce a participant’s or beneficiary’s accrued benefit nor reduce a benefit to which a participant or beneficiary would have been entitled without enactment of such a change to the Rule."
To fully appreciate the direction the conversation was taking and the possibility of disadvantageous outcomes, it is instructive to look not just at the language of the bill that immediately preceded the one than became law, but also the others that came before. I tried to paint that picture in the post from 2013 I referenced. What you'll notice is the frequent use of the word "retirement" when referring to the regulated age. Such imprecise language is to be expected when lawmakers with no subject matter expertise attempt to set aviation rules by legislation. Had the final bill contained such language, it would have been no stretch for FedEx to claim that due to change in law, our Defined Benefit plan had to be changed to adopt Age 65 as the Normal Retirement Age. The repercussions would have been numerous, and none of them to our advantage. I doubt we would have been offered some sort of non-qualified plan to fill the gap in benefits we would have lost.The language in the final bill, the bill with language that has ALPA's fingerprints all over it, explicitly prohibited such action.
That's as clear as I can make it.
.
12-14-2015, 12:47 PM
#114
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted by HIFLYR
Well if the seat lays flat your dead head will be on it. Just returned from HKG on a DH and my FO was trying to get first class. Corp travel has already instituted the catch all phrase "a lay flat seat constitutes a higher class of service" so a lay flat in business in 4 by seating meets class of service for first. Yes you can deviate if you bank is enough but how likely is that if your bank is based on discounted business?
12-14-2015, 12:59 PM
#115
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by HIFLYR
Well if the seat lays flat your dead head will be on it. Just returned from HKG on a DH and my FO was trying to get first class. Corp travel has already instituted the catch all phrase "a lay flat seat constitutes a higher class of service" so a lay flat in business in 4 by seating meets class of service for first. Yes you can deviate if you bank is enough but how likely is that if your bank is based on discounted business?
12-14-2015, 04:50 PM
#116
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 777 Captain in Training
Posts: 1,457
[QUOTE=FDXLAG;2027545]Which carrier has 4x 178 degree seats? Just curious.[/QUOTE
The united that I was in first had 4x in business!
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/United_Airlines/United_Airlines_Boeing_777-200_2_New.php
The united that I was in first had 4x in business!
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/United_Airlines/United_Airlines_Boeing_777-200_2_New.php
12-14-2015, 04:51 PM
#117
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 777 Captain in Training
Posts: 1,457
Originally Posted by pinseeker
Was the scheduled DH less than 10 hours block? If so, they could have booked your FO in business whether there were lie flat seats or not. In the previous contract, it was up to the company to book first or business if the scheduled block was less than 10 hours.
12-14-2015, 05:00 PM
#118
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: FDX MD11 Capt in MEM
Posts: 885
Originally Posted by HIFLYR
Well if the seat lays flat your dead head will be on it. Just returned from HKG on a DH and my FO was trying to get first class. Corp travel has already instituted the catch all phrase "a lay flat seat constitutes a higher class of service" so a lay flat in business in 4 by seating meets class of service for first. Yes you can deviate if you bank is enough but how likely is that if your bank is based on discounted business?
About your HKG D/H. What was the route, carrier, time enroute? In August I D/H'd from HKG-DFW on an AA 777-300. Business class. It was totally lay flat, comfortable, great food, drink, entertainment. It was scheduled at 14+20. I'm not sure what the big boogie man is here. Seating was 1-2-1. Everybody had their own "pod". It wasn't an Emirates A380 but is was pretty good. At 14+20 it wouldn't have been booked in First anyway.
Last month I D/H'd from CAN-ICN on KE. It was 3+10 block. We got Business Class under new CBA rules. Expedited screening, lounge. It was great.
12-14-2015, 05:03 PM
#119
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: FDX MD11 Capt in MEM
Posts: 885
[QUOTE=HIFLYR;2027626]
I stand corrected in the 4X!
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
Which carrier has 4x 178 degree seats? Just curious.[/QUOTE
The united that I was in first had 4x in business!
SeatGuru Seat Map United Boeing 777-200 (772) V2 Three Class Intl
The united that I was in first had 4x in business!
SeatGuru Seat Map United Boeing 777-200 (772) V2 Three Class Intl
12-14-2015, 05:22 PM
#120
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: "Part of the problem." : JL
Posts: 1,053
This has been mentioned twice but UAL has lie flat business class seats that are god awful on their HKG-USA flights.
It's 2 X by 4 X by 2 X and it's 13 hours and it's awful. It's literally like sitting in coach. There's no "pods" at all (that's for UAL global first which we now aren't eligible for under this contract). You have people climbing over you or you're climbing over someone else. Your elbos are actually touching the persons next to you; the arm rests are just like coach.
I've been on it. Good luck deviating as well with a 2700 dollar bank on that leg. This is the new "go to" flight for global travel getting crews to/from HKG. Their MBO points are rolling in!
Thanks "lie flat" in lieu of first....
It's 2 X by 4 X by 2 X and it's 13 hours and it's awful. It's literally like sitting in coach. There's no "pods" at all (that's for UAL global first which we now aren't eligible for under this contract). You have people climbing over you or you're climbing over someone else. Your elbos are actually touching the persons next to you; the arm rests are just like coach.
I've been on it. Good luck deviating as well with a 2700 dollar bank on that leg. This is the new "go to" flight for global travel getting crews to/from HKG. Their MBO points are rolling in!
Thanks "lie flat" in lieu of first....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
