dckozak

Well that's one way to rationalize it. Understand our contract is riddled with $$$ incentives to help either a "problem" in the immediate (FAR extension pay), or staffing on short notice (Draft and especially field draft), longer term planing shortcoming (Vacation buyback) and others that reflect needs of the organization that wishes/needs a flexible workforce to respond to the short and long term problem of the day. This is seen as a GREAT aspect of the flexibility that Fedex prides itself on it getting the job done and many, if not most pilots applaud the ability to "fix" things with $$$. The downside to this is a contract that has a one way fix for issues the company has and no counter fix for problems (or a desire from the companies POV to open the contract for a fix). the company doesn't want to address, at least out side of section 6 negotiations.

One of the overriding tenets of the Fedex pilots relationship with both it peers (union) and the company, is how the individual can profit handsomely from always being ready to extend/volunteer/sell back their time, at the needs of the company for $$$. The problem is it undermines some aspects of our desire to improve or keep pace on various issues as the individual can solve problems that otherwise would require a collective response. Wet leasing seems to be one where we all "win". The only losers are pilots not otherwise employed, and seniority pilots who otherwise would have moved up a seat or became more senior in seat, had Fedex pilots otherwise had to cover the flying. Its all a tradeoff, but we get $$$ for it so, enjoy your wet lease penalty bonus.

Noworkallplay

If we are “comparing” our scope to others then maybe we should ask how much of our flying (packages) is done by others not on our seniority list. In the pax world its 50% or more of pax are transported by regional feed or codeshare. I bet FedEx is not even close to that. Probably less than 15%. I think we are making a huge deal over nothing. We are talking 4 airframes. Our scope has panned out very well so far. I am always for more scope but lets address the elephant in the room first.

WearyEyed

I just spoke with him and he said you’ll get stapled to the bottom of the seniority list. You get to stay in your seat for 12 months and then there will be a system bid and you get what you can hold, with no seat protection. You will get to keep your longevity for pay. Welcome aboard.

TransWorld

Stapling is not fun and does not look good, except if it is a navel ring on a cute young woman.

FXLAX

Maybe it’s just semantics. But if something isn’t allowed by our CBA, wouldn’t that normally result in a grievance? And if the grievance is settled or arbitrated, wouldn’t that result in some kind of final outcome? And if the contract actually has language that allowed something with the caveat being that money is paid out, wouldnt that be contractual? Meaning that it is allowed and therefore cannot be successfully grieved? That’s what I asked what settlement spells out the money paid. If it’s not allowed, then the money paid has to be spelled out by some kind of grievance. If the money paid is in accordance with contractual language, then wouldn’t that show that the trigger is contractual?

Where exactly is this language that spells out the formula you posted? The answer to that question will tell us whether what you are referring to is contractual or part of a grievance.

max8222

From the contract...

section 1.B.6.c.

Should the company violate the four bid period restriction, the company shall pay to the Association the following for each wet lease conducted the greater of the number of block hours scheduled or flown, times 2.0, times the highest hourly rate for a three man crew with fifteen years of pay longevity, in addition to international override, if any.

So no more guessing other than how many block hours are getting flown. The company is supposed to supply this to the union.

Company is having trouble flying current loads even with AVA flood gates open at least on the international side.

dera

Just an outsider here, but give me QRO all day long over PHX or SJU.

TonyC

That would be wrong.

CBA § 1.B.6.CBA § 1.B.6.c.The restriction means that if it's exceeded, it incurs a penalty payment. It's allowed at a nominal price.


What is that price?

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

Not average pay.

Not crew complement.

Not regular bid pack credit hours.

CBA § 1.B.6.c.Not average pay. Highest hourly rate at 15 years of pay longevity.

Not crew complement. Three (3) man crew, even if it would have been a two (2) man FedEx crew.

Not regular bid pack credit hours. The greater of block hours scheduled or flown, and that number times 2.0.


Kronan, have you no shame in writing stuff that is just plain wrong, especially when it is so easy to prove it wrong?






.

Noworkallplay

Ahhh finally middle ground. TonyC and I agree on something finally. As you can see from his detailed quote of the contract, our scope allows for “some” flying above 60k MTOGW, however it gets very expensive for the company to do it as compared to just having FedEx pilots do it.

The only time they are allowed to do it without monetary penalties is during peak and only very limited amount of hulls.

FXLAX

I’d like to see it be so expensive that the company doesn’t exercise that clause.