Originally Posted by Fdxlag2

Good point. Invalidates nothing from my comment.

Originally Posted by TonyC

For something as serious as calling someone a liar, I think you should bother to reference facts. You would have saved yourself the embarrassment of being wrong, again. More important, you would have spared yourself the agony of owing me an apology. (Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.)

I was on vacation when I posted. I wasn't in Indy, and I hadn't rated, nor had I been denied a sleep room or a hotel room.

I posted conversations about the TA (at the time) verbiage, the concession we considered and ultimately ratified, which increases the layover requirement for (and therefore reduces the number of) HOTEL rooms on longer hub turns.

I then posted a paraphrase of the FCIF issued by the Company which acknowledged the real-world need for rest, and therefore HOTEL rooms during hub turns.

Finally, I injected one comment. I said, "Wow. Who would have seen that coming?"

I did not whine. I did not claim a lack of a sleep room or hotel room for myself. I could not have blamed anyone or anything for such a lack, since it did not happen.

Like I said, you should have bothered to look it up, because you didn't even come close to the facts.

Nothing requires more sleep rooms. Since more crews who previously were entitled to HOTEL rooms are now relegated to sleep rooms, fewer sleep rooms are available for pilots transiting the hub in a status other than hub turning. If you commuted to the hub and will be operating out, don't count on a sleep room -- they're full. If you operated in and you'll be commuting, perhaps jumpseating out, don't count on a sleep room -- they're full. The HOTEL room concession has put more pressure on sleep room availability, and not just in Indy.

The CONCESSION, if you'll BOTHER to read the language, is HOTEL rooms. We gave them up for shorter layovers, provided there are sleep rooms available. And to make more sleep rooms available, commuters lose the convenience they had before of using excess sleep rooms for rest on either end of their trips.

Again, the CONCESSION is HOTEL rooms, not SLEEP rooms and there is no requirement to build more sleep rooms.


SO, why did The Company suddenly see a need to provide more hotel rooms during peak? Were they overcome with a sense of generosity and wanted to be nice to us? Ha. Did they get a sudden urge to put safety over cost? Yeahrite. Why do they do anything? Profit, which depends on reliability, is the driving force. With the increased and persistent focus we've been putting on fatigue, pilots are more likely to admit they're tired and set the parking brake. When we raise the fatigue flag, reliability suffers. In order to keep us flying, they actually did something to address fatigue.

And now that peak is over, they can unilaterally go back to the pre-FCIF parameters if and when they want. At the same time, they'll be able to claim a savings in hotel costs and earn somebody an MBO bonus.

WIN-WIN-WIN


.

Originally Posted by TonyC

Tell us, oh wise one, how those sleep rooms they're going to build someday are helping people sleep tonight.


Since lots of words seem to confuse, I'll try the short version.


The CBA concession has made the sleep room shortage worse, and we saw it coming even before the ink on the TA was dry.

Given the invitation to shoot ourselves in the foot, you loaded the gun and squeezed the trigger.

.

Originally Posted by TonyC

Do you have an alternate definition for the words, "I know"?


.

Originally Posted by Fdxlag2

The

Tony I take it back you aren’t a liar you are ignorant. Go read the contract. In order for them to use the 5 hour provision they must have enough sleep room to accomadate anyone with a 2.5 hour turn. Therefore they did not and have not been able to implement that change in Indy or anywhere else. No one has lost a hotel room due to CBA 2015.

Originally Posted by Fdxlag2

As to your comment on not requiring more sleep rooms, again ignorance. What was the requirement for sleep rooms before this contract. That is right zero. Now they have to provide hotels or sleep rooms for everyone with a 2.5 hour turn or greater if they want to use the 5 hour provision. Again let me repeat, no one has lost a hotel room due to CBA 2015.

Originally Posted by Fdxlag2

Well are you telling us since you know? Were you sworn to secrecy by the testing lady who doesn’t give tests? What is the currency requirement for a 757 pro or a VP of Flight Operations?

Originally Posted by The Walrus

Tony wins.

Originally Posted by Fdxlag2

Unless you notice that he has failed to answer how the concession that has not been implemented has made the sleeproom shortage worse. Or

What the currency requirements are for 75 Pros or VPs of Flight Ops.

Originally Posted by HIFLYR

There is a currency requirement to be considered for a interview. In the past some people hired as pro sim instructors who were type rated instruct and maintain a currency in a FedEx sim were considered to meet that requirement. This is has changed for them and any non internal person has to meet the currency requirement. This is hardly a secret.

Originally Posted by Albief15

I understand everyone's frustration when their highly capable friend is given the cold shoulder.

That said, its THEIR company and they can (within certain EEOC rules) hire who they want. They could simply put this in their currency requirement as an *

* if lieu of currency may substitute 15 years of line flying at a 121 company and extensive management experience supervising an international cargo airline with more than 4000 pilots and two international domicilies.

Viola! The pilot in question then meets the new criteria. I have been fortunate--I've sponsored 3 pilots under the old system and all are now on property. I understand everyone chafing when their sponsoree is getting frozen out. But we don't get to pick who gets hired here, and we never have. We used to at least be asked for our opinion, and that seems to be less of a part of the process now. But we are labor, and labor doesn't get to pick our CP, our new hires, or our pilot recruitment team. We do get to pick our union reps.


We got people here that are sons and daughters that have been hired at other places, but cannot get a call here. You'd think if a guy or gal had been a good employee here for 20 plus years, their child--who often grew up with a tremendous appreciation for the Purple Promise because it paid for their first car, their flying lessons, and their college tuition--would be a perfect fit. I got one of those right now with a foot in the door at UAL and UPS. I could understand if his dad told him "son...beat it...go where you are WANTED..." The frustration is palpable.

Sometimes, I wish I had more control. Then I remember being a Top-3, IP, SOF, qualified guy in a squadron and how if any one of the handful of guys with those qualifications went on leave, the rest of us worked more that week. I remember endless pilot meetings, phones ringing at odd hours, and lots of paperwork. Now--nobody gives a hoot what I think, and they don't ask my opinion about manuals, procedures, or hiring. And that means if I want to use my vacation for a month the system just hums on along without me. I fly, I do what I am asked, and I go home.

Want some control? Go start your own business. Get a law degree. Or get involved with ALPA and try to nudge the supertanker an inch to the right or the left. But I don't expect to have any major influence over what FedEx does or does not do. That will be even more the case in the event we get Bezos in our chain of command at some point.