fdx727pilot

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.

Purple F/O

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

fedupbusdriver

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

A300jetflyer

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.

Lifizgud

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.

Gunter

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??

Coffee Bitch

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 !!!

Gunter

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.

Gunter

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.

Busboy

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.