Search
Notices

Bid Rumors?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 11-21-2017, 11:32 AM
  #171  
"blue collar thug"!
 
iarapilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
Default

Originally Posted by kronan View Post
The changes in the FDA LOA1 occurred during the ratification period and it was subsequently passed, due in no small part to the modifications of the STV verbiage....and, IMO-changed in reaction to the arguments presented here...also in no small part thanks to the sentiments expressed by Albie
You are correct and I was mistaken; the additions to FDA LOA1 were done during the ratification process, not after it was approved. Having said that, the fact is that the Company changed the agreement unilaterally and until a grievance was filed and a subsequent side letter was signed allowing the unilateral changes (due to the right seat not getting filled), a bad precedent was created.
iarapilot is offline  
Old 11-21-2017, 05:37 PM
  #172  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Albief15's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
Default

Originally Posted by iarapilot View Post
If everything relating to this recent bid and implementation is per the contract, I stand corrected and temporarily withdraw my "p!ssed offness".
You can still be ****ed about the percentage bidding, and keep your eye on the ball. Rather have guys ready to bow up than roll over. In this case, however, the passover and non counter lateral moves seem to make it a deal worth taking....

Going cheap on initial housing cost them a lot of passover bucks. Going after some pilots has made the domicile hard to fill ever since, and poisoned the well with a host of pilots. So--your pragmatism is certainly not unwarranted. I am here, I like it, but I still shake my head and see "what it could have been" or "what it can be" and realize this base will probably always have a black cloud.
Albief15 is offline  
Old 11-22-2017, 03:48 AM
  #173  
Gets Weekends Off
 
PurpleToolBox's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,624
Default

Originally Posted by Albief15 View Post
You can still be ****ed about the percentage bidding, and keep your eye on the ball. Rather have guys ready to bow up than roll over. In this case, however, the passover and non counter lateral moves seem to make it a deal worth taking....

Going cheap on initial housing cost them a lot of passover bucks. Going after some pilots has made the domicile hard to fill ever since, and poisoned the well with a host of pilots. So--your pragmatism is certainly not unwarranted. I am here, I like it, but I still shake my head and see "what it could have been" or "what it can be" and realize this base will probably always have a black cloud.
I think the bigger problem is the min and max staffing levels. There's no set formula for those. The company can arbitrarily set those. So they can control where people go to and who can move and get around those pesky sim training issues.

Of course I could be wrong. Someone correct me if I am. But I think we are playing with fire if they can arbitrarily set those numbers.
PurpleToolBox is offline  
Old 11-22-2017, 07:33 AM
  #174  
Gets Weekends Off
 
kronan's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
Default

The min and max staffing levels have Always been arbitrarily set st FedEx, only difference is we have a bit more visibility.

It’s my opinion, that the contractual staffing levels (and the odd max BLGs) at other airlines are not something the majority of the crew force desires. There are pluses and minuses to both.
kronan is offline  
Old 11-22-2017, 02:53 PM
  #175  
Line Holder
 
harvick4's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 93
Default

So where does it say all new hires are going to the 757?
harvick4 is offline  
Old 11-22-2017, 03:42 PM
  #176  
Gets Weekends Off
 
USMCFDX's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 1,804
Default

Originally Posted by harvick4 View Post
So where does it say all new hires are going to the 757?
In the bid FCIF.
USMCFDX is offline  
Old 11-22-2017, 03:53 PM
  #177  
Line Holder
 
harvick4's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 93
Default

Originally Posted by USMCFDX View Post
In the bid FCIF.
Is that just by reading the staffing levels? That's all I see.
harvick4 is offline  
Old 11-22-2017, 04:17 PM
  #178  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 42
Default

I don’t see it either in the 17-02 posting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
GOOP95 is offline  
Old 11-22-2017, 04:41 PM
  #179  
Line Holder
 
harvick4's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 93
Default

Originally Posted by GOOP95 View Post
I don’t see it either in the 17-02 posting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I just liked the 6-8 MD each class, I don't really want to be the last MD FO on reserve, but whatever, it's better then at a regional.
harvick4 is offline  
Old 11-22-2017, 04:42 PM
  #180  
Gets Weekends Off
 
USMCFDX's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 1,804
Default

Originally Posted by harvick4 View Post
Is that just by reading the staffing levels? That's all I see.
Well it used to be there. Not sure if I screen shot it or not, will look when I get back on the laptop.

It is in the agreement letter that was signed by the negotiating committe, first paragraph on second page.

http://fdx.alpa.org/portals/26/docs/...dAgreement.pdf

I must be going crazy but I am pretty sure it was in the original company anoucement also.

Last edited by USMCFDX; 11-22-2017 at 04:53 PM.
USMCFDX is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
319wisperer
Frontier
9479
06-20-2019 11:31 AM
Jumbo Pilot
Cargo
299
05-08-2013 07:06 AM
viperdriver
Cargo
1
04-29-2013 01:06 PM
Falconjet
Cargo
6
11-13-2007 07:34 AM
Freight Dog
Cargo
19
11-23-2006 09:10 AM

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



Your Privacy Choices