No, WE offered it up to them. They hadn't even thought of it.

 

Disturbing to say the least

 

[QUOTE=StarClipper;1964460]That's not the case with this TA. Vacancy and Excess (Displacement) is replaced and all System Bids will be effectively an "Excess" bid as we have known in the past and a senior guy can and will bump a junior guy each bid. While some are predicting this won't happen, the company does have FULL Control of what is the Max, Min and "Dynamic" staffing levels and that will give them Carte Blanche to conduct each bid as a bump and flush.

 

Have faith. Their vindictiveness will be their undoing as the legal process challenging their policies unfolds. They made an epic screw-up in the FDAs and it will haunt them for years. It's a contest they can drag out, but not win.

Ratified TA or not, all the APC postings which accurately depict the effects of their FDA policies support the cause. It won't happen soon. It will take around five years. But, it's very possible major portions of the CBA will be invalidated, with financial consequences which will broadly benefit the crewforce, not just those who bid an FDA.

 

Whatchu talkin' bout Willis (whitekeys) ??

Is there some current legal challenge to current FDA?

I think they fixed their revolving door costs with the notional bid concept. In the new TA once you bid an FDA you are on for two years and can only bid out after your commitment.

 

[QUOTE=MalteseX;1964934]the company has those rights today, it just requires a 2 step process that causes even more displacements than required. I suggest you send in this as a question to get it answered officially and watch the new section 24 video which is very informative.

 

[QUOTE=2cylinderdriver;1965369]Yes it took a two step process --- and one HAD to be an excess which was infrequent. Vacancy bids were pure-- meaning nobody was displaced. Now they have the power if this passes to displace people on EVERY bid-- including bids that formerly would be mere vacancy bids.

I don't trust that this is good for us and may lead to lower QOL for everybody below 50% in their crew position and seat

 

[QUOTE=MalteseX;1965545]I think you are still confusing the issue, the reason excess bids were infrequent was because we (luckily) rarely needed to excess. When we did the old process caused significant extra displacements than we will see in the new combined system bid. The new bid does not allow a pilot to simply be bumped for the heck of it, rather the Company still needs to "declare" an overstaffing in seat(s) by publishing a min/max that is less than current staffing in a seat and only then will people will moved involuntarily out of a seat (only if the excess is not taken care of by voluntary bid awards). It sure seems like this will significantly improve the ability to actually stay in the seat you hold vs. the old system. We will now have much less bumping and flushing than the 2 step process because the bid to relieve is reduced and things like the HKG A300 to 767 fiasco that actually compounded the pain and forced more people out than needed to move.

 

[QUOTE=2cylinderdriver;1965753] Every bid will now be a bump and flush. The old (current system) offers up new seats, for example we need 10 more people in HKG. The existing people in HKG aren't affected unless they decide to bid out and create secondaries. New system says we have say 100 total HKG seats and everyone bids. If 100 people senior to the most senior current HKG seat then everyone would be flushed. I think there will be alot more displacements without excesses for the bottom 10% in each seat.

 

[QUOTE=NoHaz;1965769]this is not true if you read the language. Do you really think that the Company, let alone ALPA, would want a system that displaces more bodies than our current broke system? Your example could not be more wrong to think that on every bid, every seat is up for grabs. Might be fun (for some) but certainly not accurate. Don't take my word, ask your NC.