|
Originally Posted by DLax85
(Post 3626845)
The structure of this displacement bid is different than the old "Minus 1, Bump and Flush" bids of yesteryear. Was anyone previously blocked from bidding another seat unless they were on a seat lock from a previous lateral bid?
Can ALL MEM 757 Capts or FOs bid to a 767 vacancy in this bid? Can ALL MEM 757 FO bid to MEM 757 Capt? Practice bid already showing that more junior pilots from displaced aircraft/domiciles are being awarded 767 & 757 slots, over more senior pilots. I'm not talking about bumping anyone from their current seat. I'm talking about filling new vacancies in growing fleets out of order. Previously, the tooth paste was pushed backwards via seniority. Now, it's not so clean cut. The holes are being filled differently. The company wants to fill seats at minimum training cost, regardless of seniority. We've given them more power and flexibility to do so. These are the hidden efficiencies they smartly bargain for, which we often ignore at our own peril. In Unity (for everyone), DLax |
Originally Posted by Sluggo_63
(Post 3626851)
The structure is different, but the results are the same. If they put a -25 in the 77C seat (old contract), and you were a 77F and wanted to be a Captain, you wouldn't be able to move because the seat was in excess, unless you were bumped out, or bid to relieve the excess. Same thing here. People are seeing junior people gets seats they bid, but those junior people are coming from a closing base or being bumped out of their seat. The same thing would have happened with the last contract. You can't go to a seat that's in excess (old verbiage) just because you wanted to.
Are any of the following seats in excess (old verbiage): 30FM, 67FM, 67FI, 57CM, 77CA, 77FA, and 67FO? Answer: No. The company is clearly advertising vacancies in those seats during this displacement bid. Given the long history of unionized airline pilots, how should those vacancies be filled ? In the previous "Minus 1, Bump and Flush" the junior excessed toothpaste would have been pushed further back. (....but that would require more training cycles, and thus more $$$) In Unity (for everyone), DLax |
Originally Posted by Freight
(Post 3626842)
I guess those of us in fleets that aren’t getting parked are just stuck in our seats indefinitely regardless of seniority.
Also, if you were hired in the last two years or recently moved to a new (higher/lateral) seat you may be seat locked. |
Originally Posted by DLax85
(Post 3626868)
Lets not talk past or around each other.
Are any of the following seats in excess (old verbiage): 30FM, 67FM, 67FI, 57CM, 77CA, 77FA, and 67FO? Answer: No. The company is clearly advertising vacancies in those seats during this displacement bid. Given the long history of unionized airline pilots, how should those vacancies be filled ? In the previous "Minus 1, Bump and Flush" the junior excessed toothpaste would have been pushed further back. (....but that would require more training cycles, and thus more $$$) In Unity (for everyone), DLax |
Originally Posted by ClncClarence
(Post 3626875)
Read section 24 and the answer is right in front of you. I also posted a brief explanation earlier in the thread. It’s only hard to understand if you refuse to educate yourself. You can disagree with it but from the looks of it, the practice bid was done to the letter of the contract. If you can find a discrepancy, let us know what it is and then ask the union to clarify.
In Unity (for everyone), DLax |
Originally Posted by ClncClarence
(Post 3626869)
What did you expect? The airline isn’t going to reshuffle the entire deck every time there’s a system bid. That’s not how our contract works and it’s not how they do it anywhere else. If you don’t get this, then you’re incredibly ignorant. When airlines are expanding they have vacancies in most of their seats which allows you to move easier based on seniority. When the airline is staying the same size or shrinking you don’t just get to kick people out of a seat. Period. Sorry if that upsets you, bit it’s not unique to FedEx.
Also, if you were hired in the last two years or recently moved to a new (higher/lateral) seat you may be seat locked. In Unity (for everyone), DLax |
Correct me if I’m wrong, but under the previous contract, wouldn’t some of these moves cause passover pay because in some cases some pilots senior to them did not have the option to go to training?
|
Originally Posted by magic rat
(Post 3626894)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but under the previous contract, wouldn’t some of these moves cause passover pay because in some cases some pilots senior to them did not have the option to go to training?
|
Originally Posted by DLax85
(Post 3626888)
It's NOT about kicking anyone out. It's about seats with vacancies.
In Unity (for everyone), DLax There is nothing in this bid that prevents anyone who isn't under a seat lock to bid for those vacancies. If you want to be a 75 captain, and are senior enough to hold one of those vacancies, you will get it unless you have been in a WB captain seat for less than 24 months. How is that different than any other vacancy bid? |
Originally Posted by DLax85
(Post 3626888)
It's NOT about kicking anyone out. It's about seats with vacancies.
In Unity (for everyone), DLax I think there is still massive confusion on what exactly constituted a ‘vacancy’ in the initial posting. The ‘current staffing’ column represented the AWARDS from the previous bid, rather than an actual snapshot of who is ACTIVATED in that seat TODAY. The wording was confusing, but makes way more sense if you really look at the numbers. For example, the M57F showed current staffing at 182 and min staffing as 362. The means that COMPARED TO A FULLY TRAINED-OUT 21-01 BID we needed 180 more bodies in that seat. I have had folks try to tell me that adding 180 more pilots to that seat was gonna put M57F at 520 pilots which is ridiculous, but taken at face value I see how they arrived there. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:07 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands