Rock

Why? The rules for how class of service are booked don't change between the CBAs.

Adlerdriver

Yes, they do. Did you really miss this in your evaluation of the TA? Perhaps this is the first of many reasons for you to start doubting your "yes" vote.

Remember this statement in the new CBA?
Regardless of a passenger carrier’s nomenclature or hierarchy for
classes of service, a Flat Bed Seat satisfies the higher class of
service requirements set forth in this Section.

That means if you're deadheading to HKG on AA, you get business class since it lays flat (even if it's over 16 hour duty day). The only time you get first class is if business doesn't lay flat. That was the whole point of that BS concession we gave up.

So, I guess I should clarify my previous statement. The only way we'll see FC on AA is if we deviate and somehow have extra bank to cover the FC ticket.

busdriver12

Busboy, from what you are saying, it sounds like ALPA did both. Made sure that retired pilots couldn't return, but made sure that back seaters/pretend back seaters (ie, on leave back seaters that never went through training) were able to return.

However, I'm not sure why that is all fine and good with you. I feel confident that they could have ensured that both the retired pilots couldn't return, and back seaters couldn't return to the left seat of a widebody, causing the rest of us massive career stagnation. I am also most certain that that was what the crew force desired.

Why do you think they couldn't have done both? That's what WE wanted, wouldn't it be their obligation to follow their membership's desires?

Rock

Maybe my problem is I actually read the whole contract instead of relying on the latest screech fest on ACP. Section 8.A.5.c doesn't end at i. in my copy of the CBA. If you are scheduled on your AA 777 with three classes of service on a flight of 16 hours or more and you aren't sitting in first, you either A. should have a trip bank credited with the cost of a first class ticket, or B. have an easy grievence.
I will be interested to see how this part of the new CBA is actually applied. So far, I've seen no actual data points that prove FedEx pilots will no longer be sitting in first class when our CBA states that a first class ticket "shall" be the priority.

Adlerdriver

I hope I'm wrong about this a Rock, but unfortunately I really don't think I am. Rather than relying on any screeching, I simply read the actual language in both sections. This statement contains universal language clearly designed to override any subsequent language in this section of the contract.

Regardless of a passenger carrier’s nomenclature or hierarchy for classes of service, a Flat Bed Seat satisfies the higher class of service requirements set forth in this Section.

Since ANY seat other than coach is a result of "higher class of service requirements".....and

Since a flat bed seat now satisfies those requirements....and

Since this statement removes ANY significance we might assign to the "nomenclature or hierarchy" of a particular seat (i.e. First class or Business class).....

Therefore, the language related to the list of priorities for seating on a 16 hour duty day deadhead transferred from the old contract to the new CBA has effectively been nullified unless a flat bed seat is only available in first class.

I know there are deadheads to HKG via DFW (+16 hours of duty) which will fall under this provision in the January 777 bid pack, maybe in December as well. Maybe an APCer will get one and should be able to settle this question pretty quickly.

Rock

I don't know the specifics of his trip, but it appears machz990 was recently in first class on a three class airplane. It would be interesting to know when and how he got that seat.
Machz990?......

FDXLAG

Alder I think you are confusing the requirement for a step up from coach to the hard requirement for a 1st class seat. But if I am wrong you can still make them pay for the 1st class seat. But a higher class of service is defined as block over 10, etc., block over 16 demands:

iv. iii. If the deadhead is scheduled for more than 16 hours duty, the following shall apply:
(a) The flight must be a non-stop flight; and
(b) A special booking priority shall apply to deadheads scheduled over 16 hours. That priority shall be:
(1) Discounted first class;
(2) Full fare first class;
(3) Business class; and.

Adlerdriver

I reserve the right to leave the jury out a bit longer than one bid period into the new contract regardless of Mach's experience.

Lag, the 1), 2), 3) you list above would be the "hierarchy for classes" to which the excerpt I posted refers. That hierarchy is held regardless in the presence of a flat bed seat in business, in my opinion.

Rock

Definitely. But the data point building has to start somewhere. And as it builds, it also needs to be compared to actual experiences with the 2011 CBA.

HIFLYR

Well, OK. I'm surprised ALPA didn't call you to defend them in any of the lawsuits concerning the FTEPA, then. As all the retired guys were suing ALPA for just the opposite of what most of you, here at FDX, believe. ALPA inserted language to keep all the age 60-65 retired pilots from returning.

I'm sorry to keep hammering at this...But, I think it's an important point concerning how the final language of the law came about. We(including me) all biatch about our FE's being allowed to come back to the front seat...But, it would have been much worse for those of us still active, without ALPAs input.

From this article, pilots-file-with-supreme-court-in-age-discrimination-case, by a lawyer that took a case to the Supreme Court. (The "senior pilots", he refers to were already RETIRED):

"Members thought that they had corrected the problem with the enactment of FTEPA, but many members did not know that Oberstar had inserted the provision drafted by ALPA. That provision said that senior pilots could return to work but could not claim any of their accrued benefits, seniority, or status. Due to the way that this industry is structured, that poison pill provision was an effective bar on employment. Even if hired in their sixties, these pilots would have to go to the end of the line — behind ALPA members. Many were left without health insurance or income to support their families.

The ALPA provision states:

The Fairness for Experienced Pilots Act 49 U.S.C. § 44729(e)(1):

1) NONRETROACTIVITY- No person who has attained 60 years of age before the date of enactment of this section may serve as a pilot for an air carrier engaged in covered operations unless–
(A) such person is in the employment of that air carrier in such operations on such date of enactment as a required flight deck crew member; or
(B) such person is newly hired by an air carrier as a pilot on or after such date of enactment without credit for prior seniority or prior longevity for benefits or other terms related to length of service prior to the date of rehire under any labor agreement or employment policies of the air carrier.

ALPA openly admitted that it drafted the provision and had Oberstar (right) insert the provision to strip the senior pilots of their ability to return to work with their earned benefits and status.

So, what I'm trying to get at here, is that yes, ALPA's provision allowed our active, under age 65, FE's back to the front seat. But, more importantly, ALPA's provision kept all the under age 65 retired guys from also coming back.

The original 2005 bill did not allow the back seaters to return to the front seat and that was changed partly because of our MEC Chairman's wishes. Was he right to do so is another question! Was he right to do so if the vast majority of FedEx pilots did not want him to is the real question. I am saying I am totally against what happened but am totally against revisionist history. The fact is you can sue anybody for anything "they had not won" and the fact is in the original bill there was no coming back. And before you start about leaving people behind we do that every contract this one is anyone less than age 54, last one was 53.