FDXMEC email soft parameters(must read)
03-05-2021, 02:50 PM
#11
Thx Age 65
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: MD11CAP
Posts: 1,041
Why do we have a contract that has the ability to do this crap. We appeal to our sodomist to no longer bend us over, yet when time turn bad, here he is asking for more. Eff this noise. If you sell back a vacation or are still clearing your calendar after this, you are the problem.
03-05-2021, 04:02 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 777 Captain in Training
Posts: 1,457
Originally Posted by Noworkallplay
Nope not a “side bar” as you describe it, but a “soft parameter” that was more restrictive than the current CBA hard rules language per the email. It had an opt out clause by both parties per the agreement. It also has the ability for the disputed pairing process, which disallows them in the bid pack and secondary lines unless you bid them specifically by trip number. It basically allows crews to avoid them, which then creates a need for the company to fix them. That’s what I got from reading the email. So it sounds like it’s in our court as line crew members to exercise our right to not fly them if we want them fixed. It’s also our duty per the email to not fly fatigued. It looks like these could provide a high probability of fatigue. Looks like the company is prepping the field for negotiations. If you want the rest of your career to have pairings built in this manner then feel free to go pick them up. If you don’t like these pairings than don’t bid them or pick them up. Simple. Balls in your court.
03-05-2021, 05:28 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: B757F CA
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by MEMA300
The soft parameters going away (gentlemans agreement) is showing all the weak points of our contract...and there are many. Many times in negotiations they act like “we dont need to fix that bcz Fx has never done that”. FAR 117 is only way out. We cant negotiate out of a paper bag.
03-05-2021, 06:38 PM
#15
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
When did ALPA notify the membership that The Company had decided to no longer honor these soft parameters?
HINT : [They have known about it well in advance.]
When did ALPA explain to the membership what the ramifications of The Company's unilateral decision to dispense with the soft parameters would be?
Hmm, never?
.
.
HINT : [They have known about it well in advance.]
When did ALPA explain to the membership what the ramifications of The Company's unilateral decision to dispense with the soft parameters would be?
Hmm, never?
.
.
03-06-2021, 04:08 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 1,804
Originally Posted by TonyC
When did ALPA notify the membership that The Company had decided to no longer honor these soft parameters?
HINT : [They have known about it well in advance.]
When did ALPA explain to the membership what the ramifications of The Company's unilateral decision to dispense with the soft parameters would be?
Hmm, never?
.
.
HINT : [They have known about it well in advance.]
When did ALPA explain to the membership what the ramifications of The Company's unilateral decision to dispense with the soft parameters would be?
Hmm, never?
.
.
The letter dated from the company says ALPA was notified in writing on January 5, 2021. My guess is the SIG probably knew verbally before that date.
ALPA sent out a email notifying the crew force and explaining the ramifications on March 5, 2021. I would guess the SIG knew April bid packs were going to change significantly at least two weeks ago when they saw the pairings that included the new sort.
03-06-2021, 05:57 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Posts: 279
Originally Posted by HoursHore
Why do we have a contract that has the ability to do this crap. We appeal to our sodomist to no longer bend us over, yet when time turn bad, here he is asking for more. Eff this noise. If you sell back a vacation or are still clearing your calendar after this, you are the problem.
I think your objection also rings true for guys calling and begging to be extended. I’ve seen many parings with a c/s note: willing to extend.
03-06-2021, 07:53 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
TonyC,
1st welcome back and thank you for your service.
Some thoughts regarding this issue, not all of which in response to your post.
Weren’t you still a block rep in January? I’m assuming you were aware of the companies January letter. And I’m hoping you’ve read the most recent letter outlining the ramifications of managements decision to abrogate two of the soft parameters that have served us so well. (It also helps explain the disputed pairing email as well as the disputed pairing text released on the day the bidpacks were produced)
I’m certainly not privy to internal MEC/LEC discussions as you were, but I’d like to think we’d both agree that the psychological 1-2 punch of bidpacks published, WTF, then a this is Why WTF is stronger than a January message of things are going to go to hell in April. The extra Day Sorts gonna be wildly disruptive unless we can force management to see the error of their thinking.
(And how many would read/think of it? We still have people asking what happens to a block of R days if a C/O trip or training touches it.)
As to 117, a lot of the trips/lines I’ve deleted would fit within 117. 0230 to 1030 is within the 9 hour duty day of 117. Certainly didn’t do a detailed, day by day check of the DDH pairing-so possible might trigger a different 117 issue. But the Duty Period that had me saying oh hell no to a slew of lines would fit.
PAX carrier 117 versus us isn’t a valid comparison. Domestic Pax carrier flying is hugely concentrated to day/evening hours. It’s been a long, long time since I’ve seen a legacy bidpack, but their lines tended to be 2-3 days on with 2-3 days off. Strings of single day trips, back off the clock in domicile (and off the per diem/ hotel $$). More like our O&Bs versus the majority of our existing flying.
FedEx management has thrown out every hard earned lesson about fatigue, and using system form as an excuse to do so. It’s really about FedEx wanting to have their cake and eat it too versus staffing properly to make it work, in a safer/more reliable form
1st welcome back and thank you for your service.
Some thoughts regarding this issue, not all of which in response to your post.
Weren’t you still a block rep in January? I’m assuming you were aware of the companies January letter. And I’m hoping you’ve read the most recent letter outlining the ramifications of managements decision to abrogate two of the soft parameters that have served us so well. (It also helps explain the disputed pairing email as well as the disputed pairing text released on the day the bidpacks were produced)
I’m certainly not privy to internal MEC/LEC discussions as you were, but I’d like to think we’d both agree that the psychological 1-2 punch of bidpacks published, WTF, then a this is Why WTF is stronger than a January message of things are going to go to hell in April. The extra Day Sorts gonna be wildly disruptive unless we can force management to see the error of their thinking.
(And how many would read/think of it? We still have people asking what happens to a block of R days if a C/O trip or training touches it.)
As to 117, a lot of the trips/lines I’ve deleted would fit within 117. 0230 to 1030 is within the 9 hour duty day of 117. Certainly didn’t do a detailed, day by day check of the DDH pairing-so possible might trigger a different 117 issue. But the Duty Period that had me saying oh hell no to a slew of lines would fit.
PAX carrier 117 versus us isn’t a valid comparison. Domestic Pax carrier flying is hugely concentrated to day/evening hours. It’s been a long, long time since I’ve seen a legacy bidpack, but their lines tended to be 2-3 days on with 2-3 days off. Strings of single day trips, back off the clock in domicile (and off the per diem/ hotel $$). More like our O&Bs versus the majority of our existing flying.
FedEx management has thrown out every hard earned lesson about fatigue, and using system form as an excuse to do so. It’s really about FedEx wanting to have their cake and eat it too versus staffing properly to make it work, in a safer/more reliable form
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
