MD11 Undermanning Issue
 

From Our MEC today....

"ALPA has received multiple inquiries regarding pilots being asked by management to withdraw from training on Bid 23-01 and remain on the MD-11. The Association is currently investigating these inquiries."

Given the current environment, is it incumbent upon the crew force to solve the company's manning issues? Is it prudent?
Discuss.

In Transparency, Integrity, and Unity (for Everyone),
DLax

If someone wants to stay on the MD, forego their slot on another plane, and accept that they will get a seat lock per our CBA, I fail to see what the problem is?

For example, commute to A77C at 95% or stay in the top 20% on the MD FO list....hmmmm yea I'll take the later with a seat lock. It's always been an option to withdrawal, and get the seat lock. It just hasn't happened on this scale in some time. Good luck to the union on this one.
​

a monthly or quarterly system bid would solve so many problems at this company and create zero

They know better.

Except that there may not be a seat lock per our CBA. That is up to the SCP. Where in the CBA does it say that the company may solicit pilots to give up their training from a system bid to solve the company's manning problem?

The company has two options per the CBA, post another system bid and train out the previos bid, or they can cancell the previos system bid.

The fact that the company wants to abrogate seniority by selectively asking pilots to give up a slot to an awarded seat because they are short of pilots in a particular seat should be investigated by the union. There is a difference in a pilot deciding this on their own and being seat locked because of it and a pilot being asked to do this and possibly not being seat locked.

It seems that after bid 23-01 trains out, there will be vacancies in the MD. Those vacancies need to be awarded by a system bid, not some side deal.

Agee if solicited to withdrawal by management, no bueno. Maybe what happened was someone wanted to withdrawal, incurred a seat lock for no more than three years, then word got around that it was an option if you were willing take the seat lock.

I agree, well said. The company needs to have a bid and let the pilots have a choice in seniority order.

Helping the company during negotiations, Yep, Always the right move. But then, the Dbags who flew extra before the first TA really helped. A year later and the NC thinks we are going to get gains above the lost wages. Well, Go somewhere else, oh wait, thats gone.

At this point I’m grateful we said no to giving away our jobs and all the other bull**** in that TA, would be extra painful to watch them spool up the “outsource to domestic 737s” operation while nobody else is hiring. We lost a lot of ground with that TA and it will be a fight to get back to square 0 and then see some improvements too, but at least we didn't give up our jobs.

SECTION 24 FILLING OF CREW POSITIONS.

It's either in there or it isn't. If it's not it's a contract violation by both parties.