Widebody vs 757 Capt
06-03-2018, 09:39 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 936
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
How do you figure that, since the company is the one building trips sometimes with close to a week of carryover into ALL bid packs? How are "we" involved in that division process at all?
06-03-2018, 10:54 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
This "overtime at straight pay" train has left the station a long, long time ago. Unfortunately, it's just one in a huge list of manpower negative aspects of our contract and really, our culture here at FedEx.
Airline unions with long established histories negotiating contracts starting long before Fred Smith was even born understood and embraced contractual restrictions that required more pilots. It's kind of "Union 101" and those contract items became part of the boilerplate of their future contracts through present day.
No one was jumping up and down demanding an end to carryover or unlimited credit hours during our last round of negotiations. In fact, I'm pretty sure there would be a significant amount of whining if we tried to change any of the above for the better. We (FedEx ALPA and our pilot group) are our second worse enemy.
So, complaining about a pilot doing the work of 1.5 to 2 pilots is pointless. The measures that allow someone to do that are in our contract and I seriously doubt anyone who wants it gone would be willing to pay the price required to do that. If we did try, there would be enough of our own on the other side of the rope pulling with the company that it would simply be a lesson in frustration.
Finally, this continued reference to doing something different during contract negotiations is a farce. For one thing, it doesn't happen. Enough of our own are sucking at the carryover teat every month that expecting them to suddenly stop is like expecting a crack addict to walk away from the pipe voluntarily. A portion of the one's who might get on board say stuff like "As soon as ALPA tells me to stop C/O or draft, I will".
Well - dumbass - they can't. That's illegal. You just have to do it as your own personal choice, even if the contract says it's legal. So, it doesn't happen. Secondly, the teeth of the Railway Labor Act have been filed down to nubs over the last 20 years. Deviations from the status quo have consistently been held up as illegal job actions in court. Even if we got everyone to use the leverage we have - protect min days (no C/O), fly the scheduled DHs, turn down draft, etc., we'd end up losing in the end when we are sued and lose. In the days before social media, proving a group effort was very difficult. Now, all the company lawyers need to do is come here or jetflyers and download the discussions that are inevitable during negotiations. So, let's not kid ourselves that anything would or could change significantly during negotiations.
Saving us from ourselves is difficult. Some battles are already lost and IMO, the C/O schedules some choose to work is one of them. I think we need to focus on this retirement POS and see if we can at least chalk up one tally in the victory column.
Airline unions with long established histories negotiating contracts starting long before Fred Smith was even born understood and embraced contractual restrictions that required more pilots. It's kind of "Union 101" and those contract items became part of the boilerplate of their future contracts through present day.
- A contract like that caps everyone's flying regardless of seniority at a specific max monthly credit hour limit.
- You get carryover? You decide what you want to keep up to the limit but that's it.
- Reserves are on reserve. They can't drop trips and pick-up open time.
- If you get bumped from a trip, you can't work over the footprint of said trip.
- If you have vacation, you can't voluntarily decide to shrink or eliminate the footprint so you can work during that time.
- Selling back vacation is done as a result of factors beyond the pilot's control, not as a habitual practice.
No one was jumping up and down demanding an end to carryover or unlimited credit hours during our last round of negotiations. In fact, I'm pretty sure there would be a significant amount of whining if we tried to change any of the above for the better. We (FedEx ALPA and our pilot group) are our second worse enemy.
So, complaining about a pilot doing the work of 1.5 to 2 pilots is pointless. The measures that allow someone to do that are in our contract and I seriously doubt anyone who wants it gone would be willing to pay the price required to do that. If we did try, there would be enough of our own on the other side of the rope pulling with the company that it would simply be a lesson in frustration.
Finally, this continued reference to doing something different during contract negotiations is a farce. For one thing, it doesn't happen. Enough of our own are sucking at the carryover teat every month that expecting them to suddenly stop is like expecting a crack addict to walk away from the pipe voluntarily. A portion of the one's who might get on board say stuff like "As soon as ALPA tells me to stop C/O or draft, I will".
Well - dumbass - they can't. That's illegal. You just have to do it as your own personal choice, even if the contract says it's legal. So, it doesn't happen. Secondly, the teeth of the Railway Labor Act have been filed down to nubs over the last 20 years. Deviations from the status quo have consistently been held up as illegal job actions in court. Even if we got everyone to use the leverage we have - protect min days (no C/O), fly the scheduled DHs, turn down draft, etc., we'd end up losing in the end when we are sued and lose. In the days before social media, proving a group effort was very difficult. Now, all the company lawyers need to do is come here or jetflyers and download the discussions that are inevitable during negotiations. So, let's not kid ourselves that anything would or could change significantly during negotiations.Saving us from ourselves is difficult. Some battles are already lost and IMO, the C/O schedules some choose to work is one of them. I think we need to focus on this retirement POS and see if we can at least chalk up one tally in the victory column.
06-03-2018, 11:04 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
Finally, this continued reference to doing something different during contract negotiations is a farce. For one thing, it doesn't happen. Enough of our own are sucking at the carryover teat every month that expecting them to suddenly stop is like expecting a crack addict to walk away from the pipe voluntarily.......
Saving us from ourselves is difficult. Some battles are already lost and IMO, the C/O schedules some choose to work is one of them. I think we need to focus on this retirement POS and see if we can at least chalk up one tally in the victory column.
06-03-2018, 11:10 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 425
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
There's a wide spectrum of pay scenarios for both seats in this discussion, so to ask for the "average annual pay" for either seat is way too general. Top 25% 757 CA is probably pretty close to top 25% 777 FO - so at least we can talk apples to apples with that.
Raptor hit on a few factors, but the bottom line on this really comes down to credit hours per day of work. Doing a little bid pack kung fu using your favorite bidding software will make most of this readily evident. I'm certainly not interested in convincing someone senior to me that 777 FO is the place to be, but it's really not that difficult to figure out. There is way, way more to this than simply looking at pay rates.
June bidpacks for both seats:
Max days off lines on the 757 (17 days off) pay 68.1 CH or 6.2 CH per day. 3 international Trips. Comprised of 2 leg and 3 leg duty periods. You get 3 round trip commutes to do that (unless you want to kill the 2 dead days between trips in MEM) while flying 12 revenue flights that month.
Max days off line on the 777 (20 days off) pay 69.2 CH or 8.65 CH per day.
2 Trips as an RFO. Both two 2-day front deadheads to HKG, so two "half-commutes" on the back-end of each trip with a paid two day commute to start. One 15.5 hour revenue flight back to MEM each trip for a total of 2 revenue legs that month.
Do the math on those two lines and the 757 CA makes more that month. BUT - a very important BUT - he works 3-extra days to make those additional dollars.
Since the 25% 777 FO can consistently hold carryover, he can choose to plus up his month using a 3-day trip and work the same number of days as the 757 CA above. I'll be conservative and say those 3 extra days pay 6.4 (trip rig) per day. So now - working the same number of days as his 757 CA buddy, he earns 88.4 CH of pay for the month (averaging just over 8 CH of pay per day).
777 FO: $215/hour + $8/hour x 88.4 = $19,713 for the month
757 CA: $262/hour + $10/hour x 69.1 = $18,795 for the month
Pick a more middle of the road scenario: Find some lines with 16 days off each.
A nice two trip month on the 757 both with double deadheads:
68.5 CH of pay for the month (5.7 CH per day) - some nice layovers, only one two leg day on each trip, 8 revenue legs for the month.
68.6 x $262/hour = $17,947 for the month
Over on the 777 - a single double deadhead RFO trip for the month:
77.5 CH of pay + 6 CH of over 8 BKO for the month (7 CH per day) - Two-day deadhead to Asia, some nice layovers, one leg a day when you do fly, 3 revenue legs for the month.
83.5 x $215/hour + $8/hour = $18,621 for the month
The bottom line is the "Q" in QOL is subjective. That's the nice thing about FedEx. Lots of options.
Maybe someone can't stand being in an aircraft longer than 2-4 hours at a pop.
Maybe they can hold their hometown layovers.
Maybe they prefer LCA duties.
Maybe they hate riding on commercial aircraft.
Maybe they have reasons they can't spend 12 days gone all at once or just don't like that.
Or maybe they just gotta have those 4-stripes no matter what.
But if none of the above applies and a 2001 hire is working his ass off (relatively speaking) in the left seat of the 757, even at 25% instead of earning more per day as a 777 FO ..... I'll just say - better him than me.
Raptor hit on a few factors, but the bottom line on this really comes down to credit hours per day of work. Doing a little bid pack kung fu using your favorite bidding software will make most of this readily evident. I'm certainly not interested in convincing someone senior to me that 777 FO is the place to be, but it's really not that difficult to figure out. There is way, way more to this than simply looking at pay rates.
June bidpacks for both seats:
Max days off lines on the 757 (17 days off) pay 68.1 CH or 6.2 CH per day. 3 international Trips. Comprised of 2 leg and 3 leg duty periods. You get 3 round trip commutes to do that (unless you want to kill the 2 dead days between trips in MEM) while flying 12 revenue flights that month.
Max days off line on the 777 (20 days off) pay 69.2 CH or 8.65 CH per day.
2 Trips as an RFO. Both two 2-day front deadheads to HKG, so two "half-commutes" on the back-end of each trip with a paid two day commute to start. One 15.5 hour revenue flight back to MEM each trip for a total of 2 revenue legs that month.
Do the math on those two lines and the 757 CA makes more that month. BUT - a very important BUT - he works 3-extra days to make those additional dollars.
Since the 25% 777 FO can consistently hold carryover, he can choose to plus up his month using a 3-day trip and work the same number of days as the 757 CA above. I'll be conservative and say those 3 extra days pay 6.4 (trip rig) per day. So now - working the same number of days as his 757 CA buddy, he earns 88.4 CH of pay for the month (averaging just over 8 CH of pay per day).
777 FO: $215/hour + $8/hour x 88.4 = $19,713 for the month
757 CA: $262/hour + $10/hour x 69.1 = $18,795 for the month
Pick a more middle of the road scenario: Find some lines with 16 days off each.
A nice two trip month on the 757 both with double deadheads:
68.5 CH of pay for the month (5.7 CH per day) - some nice layovers, only one two leg day on each trip, 8 revenue legs for the month.
68.6 x $262/hour = $17,947 for the month
Over on the 777 - a single double deadhead RFO trip for the month:
77.5 CH of pay + 6 CH of over 8 BKO for the month (7 CH per day) - Two-day deadhead to Asia, some nice layovers, one leg a day when you do fly, 3 revenue legs for the month.
83.5 x $215/hour + $8/hour = $18,621 for the month
The bottom line is the "Q" in QOL is subjective. That's the nice thing about FedEx. Lots of options.
Maybe someone can't stand being in an aircraft longer than 2-4 hours at a pop.
Maybe they can hold their hometown layovers.
Maybe they prefer LCA duties.
Maybe they hate riding on commercial aircraft.
Maybe they have reasons they can't spend 12 days gone all at once or just don't like that.
Or maybe they just gotta have those 4-stripes no matter what.
But if none of the above applies and a 2001 hire is working his ass off (relatively speaking) in the left seat of the 757, even at 25% instead of earning more per day as a 777 FO ..... I'll just say - better him than me.
06-03-2018, 12:05 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 936
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
Finally, this continued reference to doing something different during contract negotiations is a farce. For one thing, it doesn't happen. Enough of our own are sucking at the carryover teat every month that expecting them to suddenly stop is like expecting a crack addict to walk away from the pipe voluntarily.......
Saving us from ourselves is difficult. Some battles are already lost and IMO, the C/O schedules some choose to work is one of them. I think we need to focus on this retirement POS and see if we can at least chalk up one tally in the victory column.
Finally, this continued reference to doing something different during contract negotiations is a farce. For one thing, it doesn't happen. Enough of our own are sucking at the carryover teat every month that expecting them to suddenly stop is like expecting a crack addict to walk away from the pipe voluntarily.......
Saving us from ourselves is difficult. Some battles are already lost and IMO, the C/O schedules some choose to work is one of them. I think we need to focus on this retirement POS and see if we can at least chalk up one tally in the victory column.
06-03-2018, 12:12 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Lag,
I don't necessarily disagree with the spirit of your recent posts here - The CIC process isn't perfect. It has the potential to allow someone to build a huge CH schedule for the month. Just like bidding to avoid conflict and not protecting mid-days when someone has a large amount of C/O allows them to do that same thing. It also allows someone junior to abrogate seniority by being able to get very senior trips that a senior pilot can't hold during the normal monthly bid.
That said, I have to point out some errors in how you're presenting it:
This isn't how C/O and the CIC window work. Someone with "40-70" hours of C/O doesn't necessarily get to pick up that much +6CH. What they can pick-up is completely dependent on the CH value of the trips that get knocked out by the C/O trip - not the value of the C/O itself.
I see large C/O trips in all the bid packs. So, what is your complaint here, exactly? ALPA likes what that way?
Of course the company likes C/O. Why wouldn't they? As you said, overtime at straight pay. I think any other airline would be amazed at how much of our monthly flight hours come from C/O assigned to the PREVIOUS month's lines. Just another manpower negative aspect of our contractual history that we've allowed and now embraced.
This is incorrect. Since the company builds the pairings - they control 100% of the C/O allocation.
Based on your comments, it sure seems like your point, is at least in part, is about C/O.
I went back through a bunch of bidpacks and I could not find a single pairing that contained 80 CH of C/O.
So, what should we do? "Hard" vs "Easy" to make up trips removed due to conflict seems like a difficult metric to enforce. You already mentioned he can do it if the trips are AM hub turns. So, if the trips are relatively "sucky" it's okay? Just not double-DHs to Paris?
How do you differentiate between this guy and someone who ends up with an empty calendar because of the conflict they had no control over? Unless you're advocating capping everyone's CHs for the month, I'm not sure what your solution is. There are no carryover trips that represent a full month's pay. The outliers seem to be in the 70-80% ball park, but there are far more that may leave someone looking at less than a half-month's pay if their month is wiped out by the conflict. Short of a CH cap, how do you make that guy whole while "not making it easy" (whatever that means) for someone with a very large C/O trip remaining to go well beyond "whole" for that month?
I don't necessarily disagree with the spirit of your recent posts here - The CIC process isn't perfect. It has the potential to allow someone to build a huge CH schedule for the month. Just like bidding to avoid conflict and not protecting mid-days when someone has a large amount of C/O allows them to do that same thing. It also allows someone junior to abrogate seniority by being able to get very senior trips that a senior pilot can't hold during the normal monthly bid.
That said, I have to point out some errors in how you're presenting it:
Originally Posted by Fdxlag2
There is absolutely no reason for a pilot with 40 to 70 hours of C/O to cherry pick 46 to 76 hours out of the pot before secondaries are built and open time is released.
Originally Posted by Fdxlag2
And it does not make a difference to the company who flys the 10% of our flying we hide from the BLG pot so the only reason we keep it that way is ALPA likes it that way. It is important to the company to keep that 10% out of the normal lines and keep it being flown by regular pilots at straight time.
Of course the company likes C/O. Why wouldn't they? As you said, overtime at straight pay. I think any other airline would be amazed at how much of our monthly flight hours come from C/O assigned to the PREVIOUS month's lines. Just another manpower negative aspect of our contractual history that we've allowed and now embraced.
Originally Posted by Fdxlag2
My point is Carry Over is the companies idea, how we divide it is ours.
Originally Posted by Fdxlag2
Again my point is not with C/O,
Originally Posted by Fdxlag2
And yes contractually the guy who already has 80 hours on his calendar has the legal right to cherry pick another 40 before anyone else has a shot. But that does not make it right.
Originally Posted by Fdxlag2
There is nothing wrong with a guy getting paid 150 hours a month (accept during negotiations) but there is no reason we should make it easier on him at the expense of everyone else.
How do you differentiate between this guy and someone who ends up with an empty calendar because of the conflict they had no control over? Unless you're advocating capping everyone's CHs for the month, I'm not sure what your solution is. There are no carryover trips that represent a full month's pay. The outliers seem to be in the 70-80% ball park, but there are far more that may leave someone looking at less than a half-month's pay if their month is wiped out by the conflict. Short of a CH cap, how do you make that guy whole while "not making it easy" (whatever that means) for someone with a very large C/O trip remaining to go well beyond "whole" for that month?
Last edited by Adlerdriver; 06-03-2018 at 12:27 PM.
06-03-2018, 01:26 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: Two Wheeler FrontSeat
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
Lag,
I don't necessarily disagree with the spirit of your recent posts here - The CIC process isn't perfect. It has the potential to allow someone to build a huge CH schedule for the month. Just like bidding to avoid conflict and not protecting mid-days when someone has a large amount of C/O allows them to do that same thing. It also allows someone junior to abrogate seniority by being able to get very senior trips that a senior pilot can't hold during the normal monthly bid.
That said, I have to point out some errors in how you're presenting it:
This isn't how C/O and the CIC window work. Someone with "40-70" hours of C/O doesn't necessarily get to pick up that much +6CH. What they can pick-up is completely dependent on the CH value of the trips that get knocked out by the C/O trip - not the value of the C/O itself.
I see large C/O trips in all the bid packs. So, what is your complaint here, exactly? ALPA likes what that way?
Of course the company likes C/O. Why wouldn't they? As you said, overtime at straight pay. I think any other airline would be amazed at how much of our monthly flight hours come from C/O assigned to the PREVIOUS month's lines. Just another manpower negative aspect of our contractual history that we've allowed and now embraced.
This is incorrect. Since the company builds the pairings - they control 100% of the C/O allocation.
Based on your comments, it sure seems like your point, is at least in part, is about C/O.
I went back through a bunch of bidpacks and I could not find a single pairing that contained 80 CH of C/O.
So, what should we do? "Hard" vs "Easy" to make up trips removed due to conflict seems like a difficult metric to enforce. You already mentioned he can do it if the trips are AM hub turns. So, if the trips are relatively "sucky" it's okay? Just not double-DHs to Paris?
How do you differentiate between this guy and someone who ends up with an empty calendar because of the conflict they had no control over? Unless you're advocating capping everyone's CHs for the month, I'm not sure what your solution is. There are no carryover trips that represent a full month's pay. The outliers seem to be in the 70-80% ball park, but there are far more that may leave someone looking at less than a half-month's pay if their month is wiped out by the conflict. Short of a CH cap, how do you make that guy whole while "not making it easy" (whatever that means) for someone with a very large C/O trip remaining to go well beyond "whole" for that month?
I don't necessarily disagree with the spirit of your recent posts here - The CIC process isn't perfect. It has the potential to allow someone to build a huge CH schedule for the month. Just like bidding to avoid conflict and not protecting mid-days when someone has a large amount of C/O allows them to do that same thing. It also allows someone junior to abrogate seniority by being able to get very senior trips that a senior pilot can't hold during the normal monthly bid.
That said, I have to point out some errors in how you're presenting it:
This isn't how C/O and the CIC window work. Someone with "40-70" hours of C/O doesn't necessarily get to pick up that much +6CH. What they can pick-up is completely dependent on the CH value of the trips that get knocked out by the C/O trip - not the value of the C/O itself.
I see large C/O trips in all the bid packs. So, what is your complaint here, exactly? ALPA likes what that way?
Of course the company likes C/O. Why wouldn't they? As you said, overtime at straight pay. I think any other airline would be amazed at how much of our monthly flight hours come from C/O assigned to the PREVIOUS month's lines. Just another manpower negative aspect of our contractual history that we've allowed and now embraced.
This is incorrect. Since the company builds the pairings - they control 100% of the C/O allocation.
Based on your comments, it sure seems like your point, is at least in part, is about C/O.
I went back through a bunch of bidpacks and I could not find a single pairing that contained 80 CH of C/O.
So, what should we do? "Hard" vs "Easy" to make up trips removed due to conflict seems like a difficult metric to enforce. You already mentioned he can do it if the trips are AM hub turns. So, if the trips are relatively "sucky" it's okay? Just not double-DHs to Paris?
How do you differentiate between this guy and someone who ends up with an empty calendar because of the conflict they had no control over? Unless you're advocating capping everyone's CHs for the month, I'm not sure what your solution is. There are no carryover trips that represent a full month's pay. The outliers seem to be in the 70-80% ball park, but there are far more that may leave someone looking at less than a half-month's pay if their month is wiped out by the conflict. Short of a CH cap, how do you make that guy whole while "not making it easy" (whatever that means) for someone with a very large C/O trip remaining to go well beyond "whole" for that month?
06-03-2018, 02:58 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by StarClipper
So what happens if a C/O trip knocks off your entire month and you don’t make it up in the view add window? Does it go into your makeup bank?
Do you really not know this or is this some kind of loaded question?
Last edited by Adlerdriver; 06-03-2018 at 03:30 PM.
06-03-2018, 05:12 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 936
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
Lag,
I don't necessarily disagree with the spirit of your recent posts here - The CIC process isn't perfect. It has the potential to allow someone to build a huge CH schedule for the month. Just like bidding to avoid conflict and not protecting mid-days when someone has a large amount of C/O allows them to do that same thing. It also allows someone junior to abrogate seniority by being able to get very senior trips that a senior pilot can't hold during the normal monthly bid.
That said, I have to point out some errors in how you're presenting it:
This isn't how C/O and the CIC window work. Someone with "40-70" hours of C/O doesn't necessarily get to pick up that much +6CH. What they can pick-up is completely dependent on the CH value of the trips that get knocked out by the C/O trip - not the value of the C/O itself.
I don't necessarily disagree with the spirit of your recent posts here - The CIC process isn't perfect. It has the potential to allow someone to build a huge CH schedule for the month. Just like bidding to avoid conflict and not protecting mid-days when someone has a large amount of C/O allows them to do that same thing. It also allows someone junior to abrogate seniority by being able to get very senior trips that a senior pilot can't hold during the normal monthly bid.
That said, I have to point out some errors in how you're presenting it:
This isn't how C/O and the CIC window work. Someone with "40-70" hours of C/O doesn't necessarily get to pick up that much +6CH. What they can pick-up is completely dependent on the CH value of the trips that get knocked out by the C/O trip - not the value of the C/O itself.
I see large C/O trips in all the bid packs. So, what is your complaint here, exactly? ALPA likes what that way?
Of course the company likes C/O. Why wouldn't they? As you said, overtime at straight pay. I think any other airline would be amazed at how much of our monthly flight hours come from C/O assigned to the PREVIOUS month's lines. Just another manpower negative aspect of our contractual history that we've allowed and now embraced.
This is incorrect. Since the company builds the pairings - they control 100% of the C/O allocation.
Based on your comments, it sure seems like your point, is at least in part, is about C/O.
I went back through a bunch of bidpacks and I could not find a single pairing that contained 80 CH of C/O.
I went back through a bunch of bidpacks and I could not find a single pairing that contained 80 CH of C/O.
So, what should we do? "Hard" vs "Easy" to make up trips removed due to conflict seems like a difficult metric to enforce. You already mentioned he can do it if the trips are AM hub turns. So, if the trips are relatively "sucky" it's okay? Just not double-DHs to Paris?
How do you differentiate between this guy and someone who ends up with an empty calendar because of the conflict they had no control over? Unless you're advocating capping everyone's CHs for the month, I'm not sure what your solution is. There are no carryover trips that represent a full month's pay. The outliers seem to be in the 70-80% ball park, but there are far more that may leave someone looking at less than a half-month's pay if their month is wiped out by the conflict. Short of a CH cap, how do you make that guy whole while "not making it easy" (whatever that means) for someone with a very large C/O trip remaining to go well beyond "whole" for that month?
How do you differentiate between this guy and someone who ends up with an empty calendar because of the conflict they had no control over? Unless you're advocating capping everyone's CHs for the month, I'm not sure what your solution is. There are no carryover trips that represent a full month's pay. The outliers seem to be in the 70-80% ball park, but there are far more that may leave someone looking at less than a half-month's pay if their month is wiped out by the conflict. Short of a CH cap, how do you make that guy whole while "not making it easy" (whatever that means) for someone with a very large C/O trip remaining to go well beyond "whole" for that month?
It is in the contract and it is legal. We are not in negotiations and Seniority has ruled the industry for 80 years. I don’t really object to carry over other than how easy ALPA helps make it for people to get 40 extra hours a month. Take away the CIC advantage and spread the carry over around. If you want to fly 40 hours extra do it on night hubturns at straight pay.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
