"Lie Flat" Seats
12-14-2015, 06:29 PM
#121
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,191
[QUOTE=HIFLYR;2027626]
This configuration shows a First Class section
So what was your bank based on First Class or Business?
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!
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
So what was your bank based on First Class or Business?
12-14-2015, 06:57 PM
#122
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 777 Captain in Training
Posts: 1,457
[QUOTE=DLax85;2027688]
This configuration shows a First Class section
So what was your bank based on First Class or Business?
Mine was before the change. The new would be the discounted business as sky said in the earlier post.
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....
Originally Posted by HIFLYR
This configuration shows a First Class section
So what was your bank based on First Class or Business?
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....
12-15-2015, 07:40 AM
#123
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by HIFLYR
Mine was before the change. The new would be the discounted business as sky said in the earlier post.
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....
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....
Posted mostly to break the quote buffoonery chain.
12-15-2015, 08:56 AM
#124
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,191
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
Since the flight was more than 10 hours the bank should have been for discounted first, regardless of the lie flat seat booking....
If not, please call Contract Enforcement with the details
New precedents will be set early
I voted "No", and our current CBA is what it is now, but we must still fight to defend it
Not just biatch on the Internet
I think we'd all appreciate hearing CEs response
12-16-2015, 12:04 AM
#125
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD11 FO
Posts: 1,109
Originally Posted by TonyC
Tuck,
I've highlighted some phrases in the excerpt of the law you posted. Put them together and you form this sentence:
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.
.
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.
.
Really in surprised here - in 95% of your arguments on here you use very clear backed up language - here you are being truly ridiculous. No need to reply - you are much like a Trump - you figure by continuing to say things that are patently false it will somehow make them true.
This is too painful - done.
12-16-2015, 05:03 AM
#126
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Tuck
Have you read our Retirement Plan documents?
You don't have to change the CBA to create an effect on the retirement benefit. Change Normal Retirement Age to something greater than 60 and we lose.
The Company just did it -- I don't understand why that surprises you.
I didn't take sentences out of context and string them together. I took a compound sentence and simplified it, like diagramming it, to make it easier to see what it means. I didn't change the meaning a whit.
You keep harping on what happened with the law change, all the while condemning ALPA for participating in the process, without acknowledging that the final result was a product of ALPA participation. You cannot claim with any degree of certainty what the law would have been without ALPA involvement. You're right -- the way the law was written, The Company didn't have to change the CBA to conform to the law. More importantly, they were specificslly prohibited from making unilateral changes to a CBA. But that language was not in any version of the bill prior to ALPA involvement.
At least I know what our nuclear triad is.
.
Have you read our Retirement Plan documents?
You don't have to change the CBA to create an effect on the retirement benefit. Change Normal Retirement Age to something greater than 60 and we lose.
The Company just did it -- I don't understand why that surprises you.
I didn't take sentences out of context and string them together. I took a compound sentence and simplified it, like diagramming it, to make it easier to see what it means. I didn't change the meaning a whit.
You keep harping on what happened with the law change, all the while condemning ALPA for participating in the process, without acknowledging that the final result was a product of ALPA participation. You cannot claim with any degree of certainty what the law would have been without ALPA involvement. You're right -- the way the law was written, The Company didn't have to change the CBA to conform to the law. More importantly, they were specificslly prohibited from making unilateral changes to a CBA. But that language was not in any version of the bill prior to ALPA involvement.
At least I know what our nuclear triad is.
.
12-16-2015, 06:00 AM
#127
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
Originally Posted by DLax85
I voted "No", and our current CBA is what it is now, but we must still fight to defend it
We're smart enough to know that Management would abuse the "gray area" language in our Contract (and the not so gray areas!).
57% said it was "good enough." Shame on us ...
12-16-2015, 08:38 AM
#128
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by DLax85
Your being loose with your words
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!
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!
Yes, FDXALPA lobbied to have our over 60 FE's included, when ALPA had the "ACTIVE" clause inserted into the bill. But, without that clause, 1000's of already retired pilots would have returned. ALPA was a defendant in many lawsuits concerning just that.
12-16-2015, 08:52 AM
#129
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by Busboy
I think you're missing my point. I said ALPA had the NO retroactivity clause put into the bill. Had the word "active" not been inserted into the law...Already RETIRED pilots, under 65, would have had the right to come back with their seniority.
Yes, FDXALPA lobbied to have our over 60 FE's included, when ALPA had the "ACTIVE" clause inserted into the bill. But, without that clause, 1000's of already retired pilots would have returned. ALPA was a defendant in many lawsuits concerning just that.
Yes, FDXALPA lobbied to have our over 60 FE's included, when ALPA had the "ACTIVE" clause inserted into the bill. But, without that clause, 1000's of already retired pilots would have returned. ALPA was a defendant in many lawsuits concerning just that.
continue as you were..
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
