Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums - Find your next job as a Pilot > >
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines
 

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-11-2007, 05:14 AM   #1  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Coffee Bitch's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 94
Thumbs down FedEx Passover Pay

This thread is meant to educate those who received the mass email on company email a few weeks ago and stop the use of company email for association complaints.

To get this thread started here is the situation:

FedEx admittedly trained a pilot out of seniority who was awarded an MD-11 FO bid on bid 06-02 from last May. The pilot in question is a July 11, 2005 hire and just finished MD-11 FO training Jan 26, 2007. (He has been receiving passover pay since Sept '06 due to the company's error). After several phone calls and emails to ALPA, answers and phone calls are not being returned in a timely manner and pure disrespect shown to many in our group of Jr. pilots.

According to Mr. Taylor of Contract Enforcement, the company admitted their mistake and sat down and negotiated the following just days before the Jr. pilot was to be activated on the line:

If you have a previous intervening award (from a previous bid) and it is in the same seat and aircraft, you will train under the old bid (i.e. ANC MD-11) even though you have lateraled to a new bid (MEM MD-11). This new agreement will put in place the fact that some old bids will not be cancelled out by new bids. This will allow training out of seniority and it affects everyone let alone our group of Jr. pilots who triggered passover pay and had it negotiated away.

Look for my next entry which includes Mr. Taylor's legal explanation.
Coffee Bitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 05:25 AM   #2  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Coffee Bitch's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 94
Default

Here is the first email to Contract Enforcement after a very disrespectful and demeaning chat with the ALPA employee (start at the bottom to see the entire email trail:

From: Contract Enforcement

Contrary to your belief, Contract Enforcement is just that, enforcing what we have bargained for, and language that has been awarded through arbitrations and or settlement agreements. Sometimes, the answers that we provide are not always accepted, and of course, there is a certain amount of understanding in this. Case in point!

As I told you yesterday, we filled a grievance 2002 (02-02), which was heard by an arbitrator over a period of days in 2002 and 2003. We still await his decision, although with the settlement agreement just signed, we have withdrawn that grievance and have advised him, because of the settlement agreement, we no longer require his decision. Here’s the history of that case. A 727 S/O was awarded a DC10 S/O position, however, just days prior to entering DC10 S/O training, he was awarded a MEM MD11 F/O award in a subsequent bid. The Company cancelled his DC10 training. We filed based upon the fact that they did not pay him passover pay for the DC10 S/O position when someone junior activated.

With the recent 05-03 and 06-02 awards and the activation of pilots from 05-03 (awarded ANC MD11 F/O) into slots awarded in 06-02 (MEM MD11 F/O) ahead of other and senior pilots, this obviously got our attention. It can be seen that pilots who had not started their training for 05-03, and who subsequently were awarded MEM MD11 F/O positions, should, by the Company’s own testimony in the 02-02 grievance, have had their 05-02 award canceled. As part of the negotiated CBA, ALPA and the Company reviewed all outstanding grievances, with this latest passover (05-02 and 06-02) issue being included with 02-02.

The settlement recognizes that (1) the CBA effective October 30, 2006, did not change the language of 24.D.2.b.ii.(d), and (2), that “for the purposes of Section 24.D.2.b.ii.(d) of the Agreement, ‘a different intervening award’ shall mean a crew position award received by a pilot while awaiting training for an existing crew position award. When a pilot receives a ‘different intervening award’ his existing award is superseded (and his related training canceled) and he is instead scheduled to train for the intervening award. Section 24.E.4. is inapplicable in this situation.” The settlement agreement goes on to say, “The interpretations of … shall apply both retroactively and prospectively.”

These then, are the provisions that create your scenario. Your 06-02 award canceled your 05-03 award, and your training was canceled—no passover pay due.

An exception to the different intervening award provision, was that if the award contains the same crew status (seat and aircraft), then the award will not be canceled, as in the case of pilot 2.

I believe that this answers your questions 1 and 2. I understand that you will be receiving another reply, possibly from the negotiating attorney, or an officer.

David Taylor
FedEx MEC - Contract Enforcement
Representation Department Q
901-842-2211
901-202-3939 (fax)
[email protected] +

To: FedEx ALPA Contract Enforcement
From: FedEx Second Officer
Cc: FedEx MEC, FedEx LEC

Subject: Passover pay questions for Bid 05-03 and 06-02

Today I spoke with “David” at the Memphis FedEx ALPA office concerning Passover pay as it applies to my situation and several other FedEx pilots. After an approximate 10 minute less than cooperative conversation I was left scratching my head and confused on which side my ALPA representative was on. My attempts to get definitive answers and contract references were met with instructions to “read chapter 24” and not expect ALPA to explain questions to me. This will be my formal attempt at gaining an explanation to my questions and I would invite ALPA to provide an explanation to the other pilots you represent who find themselves in this situation.

Below are the facts concerning the two bids in question. Bid 06-01 came between 05-03 and 06-02 but did not include any awards for the two FedEx pilots used in this explanation.

Pilot 1 Hire Date 11 July 2005
Pilot 2 is Junior to Pilot 1, Hire Date 11 July 2005

Bid 05-03
Pilot 1 is awarded a 727 MEM FO bid
Pilot 2 is awarded an MD-11 ANC FO bid

Bid 06-01
Pilot 1 is not awarded a bid
Pilot 2 is not awarded a bid

Bid 06-02
Pilot 1 is awarded an MD-11 MEM FO bid
Pilot 2 is awarded an MD-11 MEM FO bid

Pilot 1 was notified on May 2, 2006 (12 hours prior to starting training for Bid 05-03) that his training was cancelled due to being awarded an MD-11 MEM FO bid on the yet to be posted Bid 06-02. When Pilot 1 asked if he could keep the class date which started in a few hours, the company representative notified Pilot 1 that all previous bids in which you have not begun training are cancelled upon award of a subsequent bid. Pilot 1 was given a training date of May 2007 which was later moved to June, then August, and as of this writing, May 28 2007 (due to a mutual pilot swap).

Pilot 2 had a July 2006 class date for Bid 05-03 and therefore had not started training. Pilot 2’s original July 2006 MD-11 ANC FO training date was not cancelled as was Pilot 1’s 05-03 bid, but was moved to October 30, 2006 (see attached VIPS training letter). Pilot 2’s activation date was projected as January 21, 2006 and was given an expected lateral date of February 26, 2007 from ANC (Bid 05-03) to MEM (Bid 06-02).

Pilot 2 completed training and was activated on January 26, 2007.

In accordance with Section 24.D.2 :
Passover Pay Due To Junior Pilot’s Early Activation
a. In case of a junior pilot’s activation to a higher paying position out of seniority order, every senior pilot who meets the following prerequisites shall be paid as if he had activated in that higher paying position (passover pay):
i. the junior pilot and the senior pilot(s) hold an award for the same crew position; and
ii. the junior pilot’s award is from the same posting as the senior pilot’s award or from a subsequent posting and
iii. the Company chooses to activate the junior pilot prior to the senior pilot(s) and the junior pilot’s activation delays the training and activation of the senior pilot(s); and
iv. the senior pilot actually activates into his awarded crew position.

During the phone conversation with “David” (ALPA Contract-Enforcement) on January 29, 2007, “David” informed Pilot 1 that ALPA had filed a complaint and/or a grievance with FedEx on circumstances surrounding Bid 05-03 and Bid 06-02 and had reached an agreement on January 12, 2007 with FedEx for approximately 12 pilots. Pilot 1 was notified that “You are not in the group”. “David” went on to inform Pilot 1 that only pilots holding an ANC bid were in the group in which ALPA had reached an agreement. It is readily apparent that the company chose to handle Pilot 1 and Pilot 2 differently and I respectfully request an explanation from ALPA with references to the contract.

I would like to assume ALPA would do everything in their power to maximize a member’s compensation and interpret gray areas within the contract accordingly. I do not claim to be a lawyer and could easily be misunderstanding the contract but as a member of this organization, I believe I am entitled a contractual explanation. I respectfully request an explanation surrounding these unusual circumstances.

Question 1: Where in the contract does it state a pilots training date is cancelled due to a subsequent bid award?

Question 2: Why did Pilot 1 lose his training date from Bid 05-03 and Pilot 2 did not?

Question 3: If this situation is considered an interpretation of the contact, please provide the documented minutes between FedEx and ALPA, which states both party’s acceptance of this interpretation or an accepted precedent prior to this event as it applies to May 31, 1999 agreement.
Coffee Bitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 05:31 AM   #3  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Coffee Bitch's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 94
Default

Second Email and reply:

From: Contrtact Enforcement

The answer why pilot # 2 was allowed to retain his ANC position was a result of a negotiated resolution (exception), which allowed the same crew status to be retained, as in pilot 2. The resolution was part of a jointly signed letter (ALPA-Company), dated January 10, 2007 that clarified this subject matter. I have already addressed the CBA—Section 24.D.2.b.ii.(d).

Possibly, anticipating your next question as to why this resolution wasn’t posted on our Message Line, all I can advise you is that I cannot ever remember FPA/ALPA publishing settlement letters on our web-site.

Regarding any subterfuge, I think not! You really need to address these type of comments to your LEC rep, or the grievance Chairman.

David Taylor
FedEx MEC - Contract Enforcement
Representation Department Q
901-842-2211 (
901-202-3939 (fax)
[email protected] +

From: Second Officer
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 1:27 PM
To: Fedex-Enforcement, FDXMEC
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Fedex-LEC26
Subject: Re: Bid 05-03 and 06-02 Passover Issues

Mr. Taylor,

Thank you for your timely response. Unfortunately my pea brain cannot follow your explanation nor can I find reference in the old contract of the provided answers.

Please explain:
"An exception to the different intervening award provision, was that if the award contains the same crew status (seat and aircraft), then the award will not be canceled, as in the case of pilot 2."

I cannot find any explanation or wording in the contract of your above mentioned statement of exception. I guess I need it in simple terms.

Someone junior to me, who held the same bid, attended training and is being paid prior to me. Those are the facts. If the company made a mistake, how does Passover pay only apply to ANC pilots? If it triggers Passover pay for 2,000 pilots so be it. That obviously is not the case but I can tell you there are about 50+ really upset members of this Union looking over this issue. It will be a shame to see the Union settled prior to taking a look at each case and discussing options with all members involved. If you are telling us that the company admittingly made a mistake, we triggered the Passover pay situation under the contract, and ALPA negotiated or settled our rights away, then please disregard the legal camouflage and come out and admit it. If this is the case, I believe it is time to convene a meeting of the Pilots in this case and request a special meeting with the MEC leadership for clarification of the 02-02 grievance and why we were not included.
Coffee Bitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 05:34 AM   #4  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Coffee Bitch's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 94
Default

Third and final email to ALPA Contract Enforcement:

Thanks again for your explanation. I received notice that one of the ACP's informed another member that it is a done deal. Very frustrating from a myopic standpoint.

My final question is if and when the resolution signed by ALPA on January 10, 2007 will be available ? It appears to have implications for future bids considering the size and length of the recent bids. A jr. guy could bid widebody ANC knowing that if he was awarded another bid after that, he would go to school sooner than other guys senior and serve very little if any time in ANC. (given he is in the same seat and aircraft, which allows the same crew status to be retained )

I am (out of town) and will attempt to contact someone more respectful within ALPA. Concerning your "subterfuge" comment, an uneducated red-neck like me had to go to Webster's.

"Subterfuge can be any deceptive stratagem or manoeuvre designed to take advantage of an opponent."

Not sure where that came from or what you mean, and it was my impression that You and I are on the same TEAM, not opponents as you state. But it appears to be a standard tactic given your intransigent attitude and demeaning comments to a member who in some small manner supports your occupation. If I may provide some feedback, your tone and demeanor on the phone made me feel beneath you, that I was bothering you, and to leave you alone.

Good Day Sir and Thank you again.
Coffee Bitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 05:43 AM   #5  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Coffee Bitch's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 94
Default

Here is the MASS email sent to about 200 pilots on company email. It looks and feels very much like the SO's first email but includes massive sanitization and inflammatory accusations. ALPA falsely accused the SO of sending out this email and threatened retribution. (remember a FedEx ACP was in the loop on these emails so the accusation is a joke).

Fellow FedEx Pilots,

The union has recently negotiated a resolution that may negate your contractual right to Passover pay. The recently negotiated resolution concerns a case in which the company admitted training an MD-11 FO out of seniority. After several days of phone calls and emails the union appears to have ‚€œNegotiated‚€Ě almost all of us from our contractual right to Passover pay. The company made a mistake and trained a pilot with a seniority date of July 11, 2005 prior to many other pilots holding the same exact MEM MD-11 FO bid. The company has admitted to this mistake, it is indisputable. The union fielded complaints yet did not include many of us in their decision although it meant an economic impact in the thousands of dollars per month to each pilot. The facts are the company admitted to training someone junior to you with the same bid from 06-02, you were entitled Passover pay beginning January 26, 2007 as per the contract, and the union ‚€œnegotiated‚€Ě a settlement in which many of us never new about, and will never receive Passover pay.

Our union is here to protect us and enforce the contract. In this case it appears that neither may be the case. Not only did they not protect us, they agreed to insert into the current contract the ability for the company to train someone Jr. to you if they hold the same aircraft and seat but at a different domicile from a previous bid. (i.e. previous bids will no longer be cancelled if it is the same aircraft and seat) Below is the exact example that took place and the union appears to have agreed to make this action legal in the future:

Pilot 1 Hire Date 11 July 2005
Pilot 2 is Junior to Pilot 1, Hire Date 11 July 2005

Bid 05-03
Pilot 1 is awarded a 727 MEM FO bid
Pilot 2 is awarded an MD-11 ANC FO bid

Bid 06-01
Pilot 1 is not awarded a bid
Pilot 2 is not awarded a bid

Bid 06-02
Pilot 1 is awarded an MD-11 MEM FO bid
Pilot 2 is awarded an MD-11 MEM FO bid

Pilot 1 was notified on hours prior to starting training for Bid 05-03 that his training was cancelled due to being awarded an MD-11 MEM FO bid on the yet to be posted Bid 06-02. When Pilot 1 asked if he could keep the class date, which started in a few hours, the company representative notified Pilot 1 that all previous bids in which you have not begun training are cancelled upon award of a subsequent bid. Pilot 1 was given a training date of May 2007 which was later moved to June then August 2007.

Pilot 2 had a July 2006 class date for Bid 05-03 and therefore had not started training. Pilot 2's original July 2006 MD-11 ANC FO training date was not cancelled as was Pilot 1's 05-03 bid. Pilot 2 was awarded a MEM MD-11 FO bid on 06-02. Pilot 2's O5-03 training date was moved to October 30, 2006. Pilot 2's activation date was projected as January 21, 2007 and was given an expected lateral date of February 26, 2007 from ANC (Bid 05-03) to MEM (Bid 06-02).

Pilot 2 completed training and was activated on January 26, 2007.

For almost everyone in this email you did not lose a previous training date. For everyone senior to Pilot 2 above and with an MD-11 FO bid and an activation date after January 26, 2007 the company trained a pilot Junior to you and you should have begun receiving Passover pay upon activation of the Junior pilot (last Friday). A small group of us feel like the union owes us an explanation and we retain the right to investigate this situation. Since the union is our elected representative and has possibly taken action on this matter without knowledge of the pilots involved, we need to unite as a single voice and request a formal meeting with the MEC officers and all Pilots involved to discuss our options. Additionally, if the union has used our ‚€œPassover Pay Capital‚€Ě to negotiate a change to the current contract, the entire Pilot force should be aware of this action. Our impression after numerous phone calls and emails from the union is that they are trying to ignore this and hopefully it will go away. This mistake will cost Pilot 1 nearly one years pay, and if ALPA has negotiated that away we deserve to know why. If you are a narrow body FO on second year pay this decision is costing you over $2300 per month. If you are a narrow body SO, it is costing you almost $4,800 per month.

What can you do to help?
Please contact your LEC and MEC officers and request a face-to-face meeting for our group to hear the union's response to our questions and provide us an explanation of the negotiated resolution of January 10, 2007.

Speak to any senior pilots at the company and explain the situation we find ourselves in and how the contract has apparently been changed at our expense. Support from the senior pilots will help.

If anyone would like the email trail between ALPA Contract Enforcement, and our group please reply with your request and we will gladly forward. You will be amazed at what they have apparently done to you.

Ponder this FACT
Considering this could affect over 120 pilots, the union possessed a negotiating chip worth more than $300,000 per month. Are you curious how they used that Passover Pay Capital?
Coffee Bitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 06:01 AM   #6  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Coffee Bitch's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 94
Default

Our group has been emailing back and forth over this issue for some time. I will post some of the emails so you can see how the union is treating the JR. pilots. Here is what another SO got when he called ALPA:

"Interesting - I got the "well, I had to wait 6 years to move out of the back seat" response, which doesn't sit too well with me. If we were trying to take that much money out of THEIR pockets, there would be hell to pay. Send me details here when you can. Maybe we can get answers on the 20th. Thanks!"
Coffee Bitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 07:42 AM   #7  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Coffee Bitch's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 94
Default

ALPA has yet to answer many of our questions or explain/provide the "negotiated resolution" mentioned in Contract Enforcement's email. Also, explain how a Jan 10, 2007 resolution "allowed the same crew status to be retained" for pilot 2, when the person in question was assigned training almost 9 months prior to this negotiated resolution. The negotiated resolution did not "ALLOW" anything, ALPA's recent negotiated resolution was retroactive thereby condoning the company's mistake without enforcing the contract.

"The answer why pilot # 2 was allowed to retain his ANC position was a result of a negotiated resolution (exception), which allowed the same crew status to be retained, as in pilot 2. The resolution was part of a jointly signed letter (ALPA-Company), dated January 10, 2007 that clarified this subject matter. "
Coffee Bitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 08:11 AM   #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
capt_zman's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 196
Default

Alright man, I'll bite. You aren't alone, there is serious b.s. going on with this whole situation. Here's an email regarding the settlement for grievance 02-02:

Please be advised that due to a settlement in Grievance #02-02, Cancellation of Award/Passover Pay, you will be receiving a lump sum payment in the near future in the amount of $150.00. Such payment shall be considered earnings in the pay period it is actually made.



If you have questions, please direct them to Eric Iverson at [email protected].



I think we all need to formulate a plan and call Mr. Iverson and Mr. Taylor. There seems to be some bogus info being passed around that needs to be clarified, instead of swept away.
capt_zman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 08:21 AM   #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
RedeyeAV8r's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,795
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by capt_zman View Post
I think we all need to formulate a plan and call Mr. Iverson and Mr. Taylor. There seems to be some bogus info being passed around that needs to be clarified, instead of swept away.

I am somewhat out of the loop on this since it doesn't affect me. What I gather is many of you feel you rate passover pay and haven't been or won't get it.

If you have a beef here is how it works........"You" must file a grievence.
Everyone who is affected can file a grievance, but you must take the bull by the horns. The Greivince committee can look at all the filed grievances and choose to "pursue or Not pursue". If they choose not to, then all you folks need to get together and go to you local LEC meetings and make a motion to to go through with this grievance. If you get enough support (i.e. the motion passes) The LEC MUST take it to the next MEC meeting and they must make the same motion. It might make it through, it might not, but will get debated and heard at the MEC level. If you folks Complain properly (via resolution).........not just ***** on these chat forums, you will have much better luck...........

Remember ALPA is YOU...if YOU don't take the Bull by the Horns, don't expect others to do it for you.
RedeyeAV8r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 08:31 AM   #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
capt_zman's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 196
Default

I agree, but the first step in this process is going through the grievance committee, which has been done. We'll see what the next step is. As for *****in about it on here, it's a pretty good forum for others to see what's going on.
capt_zman is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FedEx TA Pay Review av8rmike Cargo 22 09-11-2006 01:23 PM
FDX Passover Pay -- Couple of MD-11 Nuggets Activated MalteseX Cargo 4 08-30-2006 04:23 PM
FedEx to Acquire Chinese Transportation Co. TonyC Major 0 01-24-2006 05:21 PM
Mutiny on the FedEx truck Sasquatch Cargo 3 11-30-2005 07:42 PM
FedEx bets big in pilot offer? Freighter Captain Cargo 3 05-16-2005 06:00 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:29 AM.


vBulletin® v3.9.3.5, Copyright ©2000-2019, MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1