Don't know about now, with all this secret agreement stuff, but it used to be that as long as the new position was a comparable seat (ie WB F/O) you kept the pay until the projected ANC activation date. Had this happen when I bid ANC years ago and held DC10 F/O on the next bid. Never went to 11 training, but based on a junior guy going to ANC, got Passover till my ANC activation date.

The below chart is from 24.D.2, which you should check out for the total verbage. Sorry about the format, I couldn't make it work any better. Looks like you just have to move up from your current seat to retain the pay. Definitely call Contract Enforcement at the Union and see if there is a side agreement that cancels the contract on this one too. Let us know what they say.

Examples:
Current 1st Award Intervening Award Repay passover
Scenario 1 27FM 11FM 10FM NO
Scenario 2 27FM 11FM 27CM NO
Scenario 3 27FM 11FM 27FM YES
Scenario 4 27FM 11FM 10SM YES
Scenario 5 27FM 27CM 11FM NO

I couldn't make it to the union meeting today, but wondered if there was any ground gained in this battle? :mad:

The MEC's legal counsel made a lengthy presentation on this item. I was satisfied that there were no "parking lot" deals involved with this.

It was explained that it is customary for the association and the company to clear old business where possible when a cba is ratified.

The original case dated back to around 1999, was heard by an arbitrator, but a decision was never rendered. It was said that this person has a history of doing this. It was the conclusion of the attorneys for the union that based on the testimony presented by the company that it was unlikely that the association would prevail in this case.

Subsequent to this case another arose regarding same equipment training, and a base transfer. It was stated that the association felt that if this case had gone to arbitration that the most likely outcome would be finding in favor of the company. However, in an effort to clear old business, and based on testimony presented by the company in the 1999 case the association was able to reached a very favorable agreement with the company.

From what I understood there were quite a few crewmembers that were compensated $150 for each week that their training was moved.

Additionally, the $150/wk was applied to limited individuals since it was only for a week that each individual would have had their training slid, which was minimal. The other thing noted was that the argument from the union in the 1999 case was opposite what was being raised this time, and the company used that logic (reasoning?) against the union. The issue of a domicile isn't addressed in balck and white, and the lawyers don't have a case. Finally, I talked to Dave Risch, and he's not the bad guy in this. He looked into the issue and tried to pass along info as best he could, but is not the approving authority, so any fire directed his way is misplaced. Perhaps next contract the issue of domicile can be spelled out, but that will be moot for all of us now.

After reading the e-mail from Risch, this is a very unusual situation.

Company needs folks up in ANC and MEM in Bid 1. Some junior duded bid MEM then ANC and get ANC. More senior guys go 727 or just put MD11 MEM and don't get an award.

Before awardees of bid 1 are activated we get Bid 2. Folks in ANC(or headed there) get awarded a move down to MEM.

The lucky bidders of ANC in bid 1 who haven't trained yet get to keep their training dates ahead of MEM bound folks from bid 2 (many who are senior but did not bid ANC in bid 1)

I agree it would be nice to give some money out on this one. But c'mon, how is this a conspiracy? The company builds a training schedule the best they can in bid 1 and it makes sense to keep it intact before bid 2 is processed. What may seem fair to the more senior dudes is screwing the junior guys, again. They were the ones with the cojones to bid ANC and hope for the best. Maybe you're just mad they figured out how to work inside the rules. Have the more senior junior dudes been screwed over so bad that they want to disrupt everyone else in their wake??

Seniority is everything you say.......Greed is a terrible thing

If you're mad at the newhire MD-11 situation, that is entirely different. Did the company warn you they were going to do that before the bid closed out??

The decision affected a lot of FedEx pilots. Some pilots were told to wait, and when we followed their direction, the "association" closed the deal. I finally understand the specifics of passover pay but I do not agree with the "association" cutting a deal which affects me, without at least informing me of the possibilities. Especially when they told us to wait. And finally, everyone (the company and the "association") agrees that this WAS a gray area. I wish the "association" would have taken a different stance, but It's not a Gray area anymore !!!

Am I the only one who thought this was funny?

Fox is making a funny out of how ALPA often does business.

Assessing the entire membership for retiree health care. Taking in scope violation payments and spending it on FedEx ALPA's pet programs instead of giving it to the membership.

How 'bout that optimization going on for domestic lines as the MD-11 guys get ready for a Grid penalty bonanza.

Like Fox or not, this is funny...I don't care who you are.

The contract has never been specific enough on this passover stuff. There has always been tons of gray area (reviewing past contracts) with past practice as the guideline. For some reason they like to let the newer members walk around in a daze about this stuff. We hear about past practice on the crew bus.

Thanks for the education. I've learned a lot. Between Risch, you and Len Kelly I feel tons smarter on this important issue. Important for SO's as they figure out what to bid.

But, sadly, it will not end up on the ALPA site. It will go away for a year or two then a new crop of new SOs will have the same "irritating" questions for ALPA.


And, no, telling us to, "Just bid what you want" is not enough guidance on how to bid.

Who is this "ALPA" he speaks of? Oh yah, it's us.

You talk of ALPA as if it's some third party entity. It's not. If you're a member, you're responsible for who is running "OUR" union. If you don't like the way it's being run...Then drum up 30% of the pilots here to vote them out. That's all it would take. Look at the numbers during our LEC elections. It's pitiful! And, it's our fault. If we don't like it.

Like when I vote for the president of the U.S. he is MY president and I'm responsible for HIS behavior?

Actually, yes, any organization IS a separate entity. Having a vote doesn't make it wholly responsible to all of the membership all the time. "They" can't do that. We are not a homogenous group. That is why they call it leadership and not groupthink by committee. No I don't think anyone should be voted out.

Don't mistake my bitching about lack of information as a ***** claiming woe is me or ALPA is out to get me. It is an imperfect organization. Always has been and always will be, like all other organizations. Senior dudes will always get more consideration. Junior guys will always be expected to pick up a little slack. We get a little less outa of the organization. Maybe cause they give less $$$ per month to keep up the place.

But I bet the guys filing grievances would not be so fired up if they just knew what the rules were about bidding before they did it. I might be wrong on this one. But with the rules in hand no one should *****. There should be no expectation that awards could be perfectly fair to everyone. The imperfect nature of it at FedEx makes that impossible. I'm perfectly o.k. with that.

Just don't hide some of the rules until after I bid. And try not to be disrespectful when honest questions are asked.

We've got an election coming up. Wanna be MEC President?



Do I hear a nomination?






.

I just think it's funny that we all biatch about what our union does.

Yet, only about a third of us vote in the elections. So in essence, our union is run by the minority.

And, what, maybe 5-7%(just a guess) of us volunteer, to do the work.

Trust me, I'm not happy with many of the things happening lately. And, I've let my elected leaders know it. And, when the time comes to elect block reps, again...I remember. And, I vote.

I don't know who on this forum does the same. But...

1) If you aren't a member, it doesn't matter what you think.
2) If you are a member, and don't let your rep know what you think. It doesn't matter what you think.
3) If you didn't vote in your block Rep's election...I don't care what you think.

At least...That's what I think

My take is this: I don't like when people suck up all the disputed pairings - it gives the association no ammo in trying to look out for us. I also don't like when the association gives us guidance not to bid ANC unless you want to go there for a tour (they rightfully don't want guys DHing for 7 hours to turn into a trip, and they were negotiating a move package). They then allowed the people who didn't lock shoulders and banked on a touch and go up there get it. The unity suffers, and the message I get is, 'well, if they don't kick and scream on this issue and back up their original guidance, why WON'T people just do what they want anyway?' That makes unity non-existent and the association weak. I for one have tried to do what's been asked, directly or otherwise for the good of unity. For some people, that just cost them a lot of money. The young guys don't have the clout like the older guys, but that's a lot of coin from a young guy and it's not hard to poison the well.

The bottom line in my opinion, is that if they cancel training dates for some who fall under two different bids, then they should cancel for all. The guys who bid ANC in the prior bid, and are then awarded MEM in a second bid should have to stay in their original seat and train in order with the other MEM awarded pilots. If their interest is to get out of the ANC bid, then they can get in line for training with the others who didn't bid ANC. If their intent is to get widebody pay as soon as possible, then they should stay with the ANC bid.:cool:

None of that changes the requirement of same seat (and domicile), same bid to trigger passover pay. I'm still not sure why anybody got 150 for anything.

There really wasn't any ambiguity, just a lack of understanding of the contract. You can bet that the company understands the contract better and is more capable of using it to their advantage than the average (or above average for that matter) line pilot.

And yeah, if you want widebody pay above all else, bid ANC.

Poor treatment from the union and its employees, however, is inexcusable.

Clear and Present Danger
 

SNAFU, if you read all the posts in this thread, one point is losing your old bid when you get a new award. Prior to ALPA negotiating this in the company's favor, NOTHING IN CH24 OR ANY OTHER PART OF THE CONTRACT states this. We have read the contract. The company chose to treat pilots on the same bid, with the same aircraft, with the same seat, and in the same domicile DIFFERENTLY. If thats OK with you, you are in the majority of the ALPA MEC negotiators. I think another stance should have been taken, but most importantly I think the 200 or so pilots affected by this should have been given some information other than "guys just wait until the JR guy activates" and then negotiate it away with out telling anyone anything.

As far as your Non-Ambiguity statement....Everyone, Company and the Association, have both stated that passover pay has many "Gray Areas", so I'm glad it's crystal clear to you. Maybe you can explain why some lost their previous bid and others kept theirs.....and please reference the contract since it "wasn't any ambiguity"? I am still waiting for the association to clear that up, two MEC members have promised me an answer but 3 weeks later NOTHING. I am Not saying it's not there, just saying after 3-4 hours in Ch 24 and others, a stupid, ignorant, brainless, un-educated pledge/sherpa who has only been here 18 months and is way too JR to have an opinion cannot find it (i.e. ME).

Many salient points in this whole process. But like I said in earlier posts.....thanks to the association it's no longer a gray area now. If your JR, bid Subic/ANC knowing you may get a lateral bid prior to going to school. So instead of the company chosing to treat people with the same bid differently, they can now do it with out any ambiguity because of the associations negotiated agreement. If you agree with that you may not have thought out the possibilities. (still a gamble though)

One thing the company DOES know better than us is how the association will lean on an issue. Like the majority of ALPA members against the age 65 rule, yet the MEC and ALPA National sit back and do not support the majority. Why? senior pilots (minority) want it!!! If you think it's a 2 year process and we need to sit back and wait, and evaluate as Wally mentions.....I suggest the JR pilots take out stock in K-Y Jelly and bend over, STANDARD. There has been a vote on this issue, if thats a problem, lets vote again. I do not want my MEC to make the AGE 65 position decision in a vacuum, elected officials or not. By ALPA not taking a stance, by not engaging for the majority, they have made their decision to let it just happen. Lets put some of our Association dues to work for the majority. What a concept. Sorry about swithing gears, this subject should go into another thread.

CB: We are in violent AGREEMENT is many of these issues, particularly the last one you brought up.

I have no problem with the company working the rules of the CBA to their advantage. We all do (or should) the same.

The union has mishandled this event tremendously, and I have serious heartburn with Dave and Wally sending out missives from their pulpit about how we should all get along while they knife the younger/junior guys in the back.

They should never have worked a backdoor deal affecting 200 guys without full membership notification and awareness. We are on the same page there.

The passover issue has been beaten to death the past couple of years though, and the consensus has been that transfers don't trigger passover pay. I obviously don't have all the info that the guys affected or the union officials have, but it has seemed pretty clear to me that the ANC-MEM guys weren't causing passover pay. Canceling training slots and such should be done uniformly, so I guess if there were discrepancies there people might get a bit hacked off. Again, the union has treated is members poorly here, more so than the company.

There is definitely an atmosphere at FedEx that the new guys should be seen and not heard, that is probably true at most carriers and I think is a definite result of the probationary year and the fact that most new guys also get stuck in the back of the Boeing where nobody can hear them anyway.

Getting that kind of treatment from the union officials is pretty pathetic and completely inappropriate. I am pretty disgusted with the local and national leadership of ALPA lately, makes me almost embarrassed to be a member.

I don't mean to cause any more hate and discontent, I hope that you all get your widebody training soon. I also hope that our union leaders and employees will take realize the thin ice they are treading on.

CB is correct in that despite what the contract says, this is/was a grey area. If you talk to people who have been around contracts and contract negotiations, you will often hear something to the effect of 'It ain't a contract, until it has been successfully tested by the grievance process'. This was no different and 'consensus' has nothing to do with it. While what is written in the contact seems pretty clear, the most recent grievance process test(s) have not been. FPA/ALPA lawyers essentially argued Snafu's base transfer interpretation 5 years ago, while the company argued CB's superceeding bid argument as an absolute. Because the arb. never ruled that decision was still out there before this last round. ALPA is never at a loss for smooth/smart sounding terms for is typically bad or at least unsettling news, which brings us to the 'global settlement' of outstanding grievances with the new contract.

ALPA says they are doing this because it is standard practice after a new deal is issued to get rid of outstanding business for a fresh start. Reality is it goes back to what I was saying about it's not a contract until it's been successfully interpreted. The process of implementing a new contract is more than just programming pay rates and work rules. It's about final contractual language and the interpretation of what that language means. Often times one party(usually the company) will say that is not really what they meant when they signed off on clause X,Y, or Z. The two sides argue, and either decide on an acceptable meaning or go to arbitration. Some companies even agree to an expedited grievance process during the contract implementation period(to my knowledge FedEx has not). What is interesting is that whatever the outcome is, there rarely is any change to whatever the written contract language in question was. So unless the union publishes updated contract legality guides, has some sort of interpretation section on their website, or otherwise informs the pilots they will never know until their ox happens to be gored. Whether ALPA talks much about it or not, this process is going on as we speak in some fashion or form. Clearing outstanding grievances as part of it strives to stave off some of those 'unintended consequences' Webb spoke off. Nothing like having a grievance from ages ago end up affecting the interpretation of your current agreement. So it was highly likely that the previous passover grievance was going to be either settled by a small monetary settlement to 'prove' ALPA was right or an agreement on language interpretation going forward(current grievance). It probably would have been the latter, but it seems ALPA was able to use the companies own testimony in the old case to win a small award for some in the current case.

Going forward it seems like this is an issue that should be handled with better language in future deals. This isn't a deal unique to FedEx, most airlines have some sort of passover or activation pay protection in their contracts. The difference seems to be that it rarely is an issue at other carriers unless there is a massive furlough/downbid going on. The manager at the Holiday Inn Express told me it is probably because of the large bids and subsequent training cycles. ALPA can't control when a bid is put out, but they can attempt to mitigate the effects on their pilots. Go over to the majors section and look at that proposed deal that United got, it's fairly typical of what other contracts tend to say. It says you must begin training 9 mos. after recieving an award, but you receive your new payrate after 6 mos. That would probably lead to the shorter/smaller bids that many have been advocating and less talk about this stuff in the future. Alot of fur has been raised on this deal, why not try and fix once and for all next time?

What you seem to be missing is that these individuals bid out of ANC on a following bid and had not started training for ANC yet. They were then trained for ANC and did a touch and go there and then came to MEM ahead of all those that bid MEM on the same bid they did. Their ANC bid should have been canx and then trained in seniority order for MEM.

As far as gaming the system goes, we shouldn't have to game the system, especially when it comes to seniority. We are always told to bid what and where you want to fly.

If you don't have all of the info, maybe you shouldn't talk about the contract being clear in the area under dicussion, because it is clear to those of us who were affected.

Yes, bid what you want to fly. If you wanted ANC you should have bid it. A couple of guys transferring domiciles doesn't trigger passover pay. If the guy(s) didn't ever activate in ANC then yes they shouldn't have been trained ahead of senior guys waiting for training for MEM. The company should have pulled them out of training and put them back on the panel or right seat and let you guys go to training. That would likely have been the result of a grievance which is evidently what the union was trying to prevent. Just a guess.

I know it sounds condescending and I don't mean it to. I've only been here about 5 years, so I am a newbie too. The tone of the complaints is very off-putting and that is why you guys are not getting the support that you deserve. Yeah I spent my first two years on the panel on reserve and couldn't even sniff the right seat of the Boeing for 3 years, so I have difficulty seeing how the guys here a year or so feel slighted because a couple of guys got a better deal than them.

I know a lot of guys in Flight Test tried to volunteer to go fetch those 75s like they do every other new (to us) aircraft and none of them were selected to do so. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the union officials should have been more responsive, respectful and representative to your guys' concerns, that is for sure. I still don't see the huge injustice that many seem to feel though, because I am not all about the money I guess.

Anyway, I have dug myself a hole I had no intention of digging, I wish you all the best and I hope you all get your widebody training soon. I also hope the union officials see the need for a wakeup call before they really do damage to the unity we displayed over the past 2.5 years.

It's late but let me take a shot at this. X bids ANC 11 fo on bid 1. Is assigned a training date prior to y who bid MEM 11 FO. On bid 2, X bids back to MEM and is activated prior to Y which bid it on bid 1. I think that's it.


It doesn't matter what x did on the second bid. If he stayed in ANC or not. The reason being is that that training slot will be filled by an ANC FO. Person Y would have never seen that training slot anyway.


Just the way it has been for awhile here..... As far a gaming the system, the company doesn't even know what their doing in 18 months. Long range planning here is next week.

Past....

It's never worked that way. The same scenario occured after the postal bid, but the ANC guys from the pre-Postal bid still went to their original training (after postal bid,) activated in ANC, and then transfered to MEM. In this case, however, there were no Purple nuggets to help them get out of ANC and some of those guys didn't get back to MEM until months after guys of their seniority who got MEM on the 2nd bid had activated. Did they think they got a bad deal? Yes! Was it legal by the CBA? Yes? Is life always fair? No! Get over it.

Very good info. The history preceding current events is enlightening.

I certainly have no disappointment considering it is such a good deal to hop into a widebody in one or two years here.

But I do hope the FDX Alpa website gets some good articles explaining historical precedent and how it relates to bidding and the contract so others won't get surprised again. It would save the membership and ALPA reps some wasted brain cells.

And the company testified in 02-02 that a following bid canx a previous bid if training hasn't started yet. The argument is that the contract should specify what happens when someone switches domiciles and hasn't started training for the first bid yet. Because it has happened in the past doesn't cut it. It should be in writing and as CB has been saying, both the company and ALPA have said it is a grey area. The company shouldn't be able to decide at their whim that one day they will canx training for a bid and the next day decide they won't. It needs to be written in the contract, and as of now, it still isn't. Before you say get over it again, Don't.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong (as usual)
 

1234567890

It's all fun and games until someone gets and eye poked out. Then it's just fun...

I say get over it, because in my experience with FPA and ALPA, the union won't press on an issue that affects only a few people (less than several hundred,) especially if the affected pilots are all junior. Not the way I would wish it to be, but that's the way it is!

Good call... You learn well, grasshoppah....

Bump.

This needs to be read and reread by the junior guys. There was a lot foreshadowing of the events of last month as long ago as February.

Albie's got it right; folks need to know that the interests of the few sometimes receive less support (06-02 passover pay vs. 02-02 grievance) or more support (anyone approaching age 60 ) depending on their influence on the MEC. It's disgusting, but true.

I really don't get it. Protecting senority rights on age 60 is the "right thing to do". But telling the boys to bend over on passover pay....well, we at the mec don't have a problem with that.

There was no asking the "junior" guys to bend over on the Passover Pay issue. If there was something in the Contract to stand on, it would have been defended. Unfortunately, there was not. Although the practice seems unfair, it is legal by the Contract. Given that set of facts, the Company was not going to spend money to do what we thought was fair, and an arbitrator would have never found the case in our favor. Bottom line, it would have been money wasted on a lost grievance.

Do I like the practice? No. Blame the Company, not our Association.




.

By the way, how many of you were at the February 2007 Joint Memphis LEC meeting where this issue was discussed at length and a presentation given by the experts?


Go ahead, raise your hands.




.

Tony: The association signed the contract. They need to see that the loophole, if you will, has had a very negative impact on a fairly large number of folks and that maybe we need to get clearer wording in the next contract on base transfers.

That still doesn't explain the treatment the guys got from the union employees and points to the need for better education about the passover pay provisions in the contract. Yes its a two way street, the members need to be familiar with the contract and understand when passover is appropriate, but it wouldn't hurt for the union leaders to provide open info to the membership on these backdoor agreements with the company on 5 year old grievances either.

There is obviously a huge amount of misunderstanding among the newer hires about how and when and why passover is paid. We, as a union, need to address this to prevent issues like this coming up and fracturing the unity of the membership. We have too much of that already. You can point fingers back on the membership, but it has to be a two way street, the leaders can't just sit back and say you figure it out on your own.

I think the best way to educate the newer hires is through the mentor program (which I am a member of) to pass this info to the new hires. It would also be a way to pass info on the DP process so that we don't have newer hires out there wondering why nobody will talk to them because they picked up a DP. We need some info flow to the new hires during the first year because most if not all of the info passed during indoc is long flushed by the time they hit the line.

FJ

The association (FPA at the time) signed the contract, and the members endorsed it with a vote. 87% of voters said "Yes." I was part of the 13% that voted "No", so do I get a different deal? Of course not. The Contract was ratified by the membership, so, for better or for worse, we live and die by it.

The loophole cuts both ways. When I was an ANC FO and bid back to MEM, junior pilots were awarded, trained, and activated in MEM before I was transferred. Should I have sued for the cost of commuting an extra three months? Those pilots junior to me got what I wanted before I got it. Unfair! Unfair!

You want to know why I didn't go screaming to the Contract folks at the union to demand they grieve my case? Because I read the Contract, and saw that what The Company did was legal. Fair or unfair is irrelevant at that point. The Contract was and is clear on the issue.


If you think there should be clearer or better or alternate language in the Contract the next time around, I encourage you to make your voice heard. Just be careful what you ask for.


In light of the facts, it's unfair to characterize the union as having "rolled over" on anyone. That simply did not happen.



.