I agree. Pilots respect other pilots more than non-pilots. It's the truth, we can't help it. Bush Jr and Sr, no matter what you thought of their politics....at least they were pilots. King Abdullah of Jordan...pilot. Love that guy. Clinton, Obama and Trump.....meh, they aren't even pilots.:cool:

This guy too....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbmajdLIAg0


He even parks his car in the Democratic People's Republic Parking Lot!

Why do you keep referring to him as the chief pilot? The new chief pilot has been on the seniority list for 30+ years. I thought we were talking about someone else.

Tony you are lying I won’t even bother to look up your whine but you blamed the Contract for your lack of a sleep room/hotel. In fact since there were not enough sleep rooms the contractual change you blamed was not in effect. And the sleep room “concession” actually requires more sleep rooms, which in fact, they are building.

Whining to sniveling. Nothing you posted would have prevented the chief pilot from getting hired.

He is the VP of Flight Ops, not the Chief Pilot.

Good for you, if you want to debate the arbitrary and flexible nature of the hiring process I’m with you. But the minimums are what I posted. Have you asked what they count as recency of experience? Do FDX pros have to go out and rent a 76? Have you asked the VP of flight ops when was his last landing? Was there a deal made with the company when he was awarded his FDX employee number? That would certainly be just as legally and morally binding as whatever arbitrary recency of experience test they have.

Edit: So what is the recency of experience requirement? Six weeks, six months, or six years? Or is it a flexible number based on the applicant’s background?

Good point. Invalidates nothing from my comment.

Well of course the Supreme Leader can do anything, he is a God.:rolleyes:

I think the company should mandate that we have to get his super cool haircut.

So since we’ve gotten to talking titles, can someone explain to me the difference of our SVP of flight ops and the VP of flight ops? Seems there might be some redundancy here...

No dog is this current thread fight as I’m not hired, but if there is a ‘known’ recency standard I’m curious to know it as well. I’ve always been told the 100/12 is a good benchmark across the industry.

About 250k per year.

Becoming a Fedex Pilot
 

Management can hire whoever they want. Minimum requirements and recency of experience are not contractual. They can literally change those one second, hire who they want, and then change them back...or not.

At some point, the pilot shortage will hit Fedex and they will lower the requirements indefinitely.

My understanding is he didn’t do any of the above, buds in the different shops say they never saw him. Interesting the new improved progress had to blind and pass legal test for fairness bla bla bla now this. Hope some of the internals denied a number because of recenecy etc. sue the company. I am pretty sure in all my years here and I asked a former Chief Pilot also, no one was hired to the line without at least going through the process except possibly in the very beginning. Nothing personal but I think this is a issue is because the way internal employees and external applicants have been treated by the new sheriff over recruitment.

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 :rolleyes:






.

Did you even read my post that you quoted? I think I know why you're having trouble understanding the hub turn HOTEL room concession if you're having this much trouble with reading comprehension. Let me repeat my post with the answer to your question highlighted. It's not like it's buried in the bowels of a lengthy, rambling post (which I confess I have been guilty of at times). It's the only topic of the post, and after asking the question, the answer is explicitly stated in the first 2 sentences consisting of only 7 words. Short words, even. Look:



.

I agree. The only thing holding my friend back right now is the recency of experience requirement. The Pilot Recruitment boss said he'd have to have hours in the same type of airplane required to meet the PIC/SIC requirements. In other words, MTOGW of 12,500#, turboprop or jet. When I pointed out those things aren't usually available for weekend rentals, she recommended he get a job with a regional. She explained that will help him with the testing and the SBI.


He's got a great sim instructor job for the Navy, where he teaches stuff like the SBI. I think he'd do just fine with the testing. But what do I know, I was never a paralegal. :rolleyes:


I highly doubt our VP of Flight Ops met any recency requirement.


Discrimination?






.

It is my understanding that one of them (the latter) is mandated by the FAA, and the other (the former) was created to allow an aging VP to remain employed after reaching the regulated age.






.

My question remains valid. Go read your post. You said someone ignored you. You never said you got to ask your question. So apparently now you are claiming you did, what is the recency of experience minimum for say a 757 Pro?

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






.

If you don't know the difference between the SCP and the VP of flight OPs, how credible are you?

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.

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.

Now explain in 1000 words or less how “this CBA concession has made the sleep room shortage worse”?

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?

Your claim is that since The Company has not yet implemented the provision, it is not a concession?

THAT is ignorant.



I continue to comment about not requiring more sleep rooms because you continue to claim that the sleep room concession requires them to build more sleep rooms. To wit,
It's not a sleep room concession, it's a HOTEL room concession. We did not give up sleep rooms. We changed the parameters for a HOTEL room which will allow them to reduce the number of HOTEL rooms for hub turning pilots.

It does NOT require more sleep rooms.






.

Testing lady? Where did you come up with that?

Really, your failures to read and comprehend are growing tiresome.

I answered the question upthread. Go find it.






.

Tony wins.

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.

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.

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.

Wait, I thought that we were in a business relationship with the company. That contracts and such were business decisions, and now your telling us that we are merely labor? The horror. It must be exhausting always trying to be the reasonable voice on the internet. exhausting.

Beats trying to write a book. Kudos to your efforts there. Your points on Jetflyers are always well taken--when your name is visible your skill and intelligent arguments show. When you sling venom at guys going through divorce or being the king of snark hiding behind an anonymous screen name the points fade into just more noise.

My point on the latest was "pick your battle". I have heard another VP will be going to the MD-11 and get a seniority number. I guess we'll see...

If it is well known what is it, six weeks, six months, or six years? And is the VP of Flight Ops a non internal employee? Did the rules change for a Pro hired under one set of rules retroactively? Are any of us privledged to know the package the VPFO was offered when he was hired? Pretty sure he met the currency requirements when he interviewed. What do we lose by the VPFO getting a line number? And once again my question remains, what contractual change in contract 202X do you want to see that will prevent this from happening again?. This was the question that I asked that fired up Tony’s whiney snark machine. He and Pin have failed to answer it.

Tony also fails to answer how a provision that has never been implemented has cost us one hotel room or one sleep room to date.

Done with this thread Tony can tilt at imaginary windmills all he wants.

Well said. Agree 100%.

Actually, Tony did answer that question. I didn't realize you wanted an answer from me specifically.

It's hysterical seeing you complain about someone being a whiney snark machine. Since you are done with this thread, see ya Mr, Q.:D

hm. I’m not on jet flyers. I didn’t try to write a book. I’d be happy to share my name; suggesting that I’m hiding behind an avatar isn’t true. The soon-to-be-divorced guy who aired his dirty laundry knows who I am, apparently you don’t. but as always you’ve established the high ground, and perhaps our relationship was better when you simply ignored my snarky, noisy comments. It’s unbecoming of you when you get down here and play in the mud with us peasants.

and you, shut up!

What happened to the namaste?

-UA

I guess I’m back. So which of his proposals would have prevented the company from hiring a VP? Yeah you’re right none of them.

Oh yeah, shut up, namaste.

I guess this makes you the liar.:D