Draft during Vacation?
10-04-2015, 06:47 PM
#21
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
Originally Posted by champ42272
Lets just say the TA doesn't pass.
How many of these very same people who sold back vacation will fly draft/volunteer to move the boxes, and possibly at 200%??
How many of these very same people who sold back vacation will fly draft/volunteer to move the boxes, and possibly at 200%??
I don't think they could offer 200% draft under the current rules - if the TA is voted down we are still in Sec 6 negotiations and the company can not just start changing things!
Originally Posted by champ42272
Sorry, but this is exactly why I voted yes.
I personally look at it as the NC has 80% support and I'm all-in with those odds!
10-04-2015, 06:58 PM
#22
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Position: 11CA
Posts: 47
Originally Posted by DLax85
Yes --- the source would be interesting....???
At least tell us if this is company data....or association data?
At least tell us if this is company data....or association data?
Neither. I track it with Excel by taking the vacation list now (Nov. bid period) and comparing it to the vacation list after vacations cancellations are processed; pretty easy to do (takes about 1-hour/month). Of course, the company is the only party that knows exactly how many were "unlucky" (bid for it but didn't get it), but that sure gives them a pulse of the resolve of the crew force; as reflected in the POS TA IMHO.
Based on the data I track, I am surprised the company even bothered to negotiate with us (it usually went pretty senior in most seats).
When the company looked past the Negotiating Committee at "us", they must have been very pleased! Lots of very interesting results.... For instance, when vacations cancellations were solicited in some seats, and no pilots "volunteered", why was not at least one vacation Involuntarily Cancelled? Did the need suddenly disappear? or could it be they were just testing the resolve of the crew force (by saying it was needed in most seats)? Or just setting themselves up for the ability to do Advanced Volunteer?
10-04-2015, 07:08 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 110
Originally Posted by busdriver12
When asked that question, he quoted some technical language about screens and matrixes, therefore proving his FedEx pilot credentials
I am curious of who and why someone would post all this stuff. Internet personality? Student doing research on internet forums? Law school student interested in aviation contracts? High school student bored, or working on a subject for college essays? I'm all for having anyone participate on these sites, but I appreciate it when one is honest about their occupation and interest.
I am curious of who and why someone would post all this stuff. Internet personality? Student doing research on internet forums? Law school student interested in aviation contracts? High school student bored, or working on a subject for college essays? I'm all for having anyone participate on these sites, but I appreciate it when one is honest about their occupation and interest.
Now consider the positions of someone who doesn't choose an airplane logo, or an aircraft related callsign and let's see what conclusion commends itself.
I have drawn attention to the less obvious aspects of this TA that argue for it being turned down, leaving most of the issues to others, with whom I find broad, though not unanimous, agreement.
The less obvious issues I have chosen to draw attention to include:
Per diem is too low. It should be the higher Government Rates which reset each year.
Multiple sections on deadheading, seats and banks are so poorly worded that any attempt to arbitrate it will fail. We needed someone as pedantic about semantics as Tony or Raptor or CloudSailor looking over this before it was sent our way.
MUV, MUS, CMU and AFB should be eligible for SUB, thus benefitting the pilots. PNP not being adequately defined, but has a priority greater than CMU.
Increase the amount of time you are allowed for intermediate stops while positioning to or from a trip.
Remove the contradiction on train travel limits in different sections.
Remove the ambiguity on SLB in the 23+remainder or 24+remainder months for those who stay till the month they turn 65. Use an example.
Pointing out that two pilots have differing opinions of how a deadheading section of the TA is to be interpreted, thus commending that it be rewritten with language that is not disputed amongst ourselves before it is even ratified.
Suggesting that, but for the obfuscation on A-380/777 payrates, the last TA would not have been ratifiable using 260 as a basis for the A plan. I suggested it would have needed to be 300 then to have a chance at being ratified. If 300 then, surely 330 by now. That would help the company with manning as people would stretch for it, rather than flying at 50c on the dollar in SLB, which many will not do. Many will draw their Disability Bank down to zero and have a partial countering effect to that which the company desires. Go back and read what I wrote.
Substitution wording changed (TAFB window greater than 72 hours) in a way that might cause the removal of a screen that currently has problems but, if fixed, would aid pilots in knowing what their choices are in the most complex portion of SUB and RAT.
I will run out of time before I run out of TA.
In short, the only way to fix many of these issues, some of which are not seemingly important until it is being grieved or arbitrated, is to vote No on this very tentative agreement. Words and concepts need to be rewritten and re-explored.
So, do you care to make another deduction? Am I a garbage guts pilot who will pour an awful lot of coffee down my gullet while working under the proposed Rules of Engagement that have me sufficiently engaged to deal with the perturbations directed at me from a cubicle dweller with multiple signins?
One thing is for sure. I don't work for Oliver Wyman.
And I have a measure of discomfort also with codifying the SLB because it pays 50c on the dollar. I am partially conflicted on this issue, but not completely. I may become sorry for using nuance with you on this issue.
For the sake of being even keeled, I will go off message here. I think there are significant benefits in the fatigue section especially. My commendation to all who worked on it. Obvious care conceptually and attention to detail in the wording. Well done. I read that section and I think PSP.
But since you like to do sleuth work, what is the other significant part of our arrangement with the company that has pilots working for 50c on the dollar? Hint. If one of my suggestions that I listed were enacted, to a degree, it would be lessened; to the benefit of pilots and the company.
10-04-2015, 07:53 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
Originally Posted by PolicyWonk
Of a certainty there are many handles on here who are not pilots.
Originally Posted by PolicyWonk
One person in particular posts many times under many callsigns. Of a certainty, he/she will not fly under this TA.
Originally Posted by PolicyWonk
Some of the posts in this thread are from that person; ambivalent, cavalier, cajoling. A veritable schoolyard bully.
Originally Posted by PolicyWonk
So, do you care to make another deduction? Am I a garbage guts pilot who will pour an awful lot of coffee down my gullet while working under the proposed Rules of Engagement that have me sufficiently engaged to deal with the perturbations directed at me from a cubicle dweller with multiple signins?
Originally Posted by PolicyWonk
For the sake of being even keeled, I will go off message here. I think there are significant benefits in the fatigue section especially. My commendation to all who worked on it. Obvious care conceptually and attention to detail in the wording. Well done. I read that section and I think PSP.
Oh man, I need to get a drink!
10-04-2015, 07:54 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: FDX MD11 Capt in MEM
Posts: 885
Originally Posted by PolicyWonk
Of a certainty there are many handles on here who are not pilots. One person in particular posts many times under many callsigns. Of a certainty, he/she will not fly under this TA. Some of the posts in this thread are from that person; ambivalent, cavalier, cajoling. A veritable schoolyard bully.
Now consider the positions of someone who doesn't choose an airplane logo, or an aircraft related callsign and let's see what conclusion commends itself.
I have drawn attention to the less obvious aspects of this TA that argue for it being turned down, leaving most of the issues to others, with whom I find broad, though not unanimous, agreement.
The less obvious issues I have chosen to draw attention to include:
Per diem is too low. It should be the higher Government Rates which reset each year.
Multiple sections on deadheading, seats and banks are so poorly worded that any attempt to arbitrate it will fail. We needed someone as pedantic about semantics as Tony or Raptor or CloudSailor looking over this before it was sent our way.
MUV, MUS, CMU and AFB should be eligible for SUB, thus benefitting the pilots. PNP not being adequately defined, but has a priority greater than CMU.
Increase the amount of time you are allowed for intermediate stops while positioning to or from a trip.
Remove the contradiction on train travel limits in different sections.
Remove the ambiguity on SLB in the 23+remainder or 24+remainder months for those who stay till the month they turn 65. Use an example.
Pointing out that two pilots have differing opinions of how a deadheading section of the TA is to be interpreted, thus commending that it be rewritten with language that is not disputed amongst ourselves before it is even ratified.
Suggesting that, but for the obfuscation on A-380/777 payrates, the last TA would not have been ratifiable using 260 as a basis for the A plan. I suggested it would have needed to be 300 then to have a chance at being ratified. If 300 then, surely 330 by now. That would help the company with manning as people would stretch for it, rather than flying at 50c on the dollar in SLB, which many will not do. Many will draw their Disability Bank down to zero and have a partial countering effect to that which the company desires. Go back and read what I wrote.
Substitution wording changed (TAFB window greater than 72 hours) in a way that might cause the removal of a screen that currently has problems but, if fixed, would aid pilots in knowing what their choices are in the most complex portion of SUB and RAT.
I will run out of time before I run out of TA.
In short, the only way to fix many of these issues, some of which are not seemingly important until it is being grieved or arbitrated, is to vote No on this very tentative agreement. Words and concepts need to be rewritten and re-explored.
So, do you care to make another deduction? Am I a garbage guts pilot who will pour an awful lot of coffee down my gullet while working under the proposed Rules of Engagement that have me sufficiently engaged to deal with the perturbations directed at me from a cubicle dweller with multiple signins?
One thing is for sure. I don't work for Oliver Wyman.
And I have a measure of discomfort also with codifying the SLB because it pays 50c on the dollar. I am partially conflicted on this issue, but not completely. I may become sorry for using nuance with you on this issue.
For the sake of being even keeled, I will go off message here. I think there are significant benefits in the fatigue section especially. My commendation to all who worked on it. Obvious care conceptually and attention to detail in the wording. Well done. I read that section and I think PSP.
But since you like to do sleuth work, what is the other significant part of our arrangement with the company that has pilots working for 50c on the dollar? Hint. If one of my suggestions that I listed were enacted, to a degree, it would be lessened; to the benefit of pilots and the company.
Now consider the positions of someone who doesn't choose an airplane logo, or an aircraft related callsign and let's see what conclusion commends itself.
I have drawn attention to the less obvious aspects of this TA that argue for it being turned down, leaving most of the issues to others, with whom I find broad, though not unanimous, agreement.
The less obvious issues I have chosen to draw attention to include:
Per diem is too low. It should be the higher Government Rates which reset each year.
Multiple sections on deadheading, seats and banks are so poorly worded that any attempt to arbitrate it will fail. We needed someone as pedantic about semantics as Tony or Raptor or CloudSailor looking over this before it was sent our way.
MUV, MUS, CMU and AFB should be eligible for SUB, thus benefitting the pilots. PNP not being adequately defined, but has a priority greater than CMU.
Increase the amount of time you are allowed for intermediate stops while positioning to or from a trip.
Remove the contradiction on train travel limits in different sections.
Remove the ambiguity on SLB in the 23+remainder or 24+remainder months for those who stay till the month they turn 65. Use an example.
Pointing out that two pilots have differing opinions of how a deadheading section of the TA is to be interpreted, thus commending that it be rewritten with language that is not disputed amongst ourselves before it is even ratified.
Suggesting that, but for the obfuscation on A-380/777 payrates, the last TA would not have been ratifiable using 260 as a basis for the A plan. I suggested it would have needed to be 300 then to have a chance at being ratified. If 300 then, surely 330 by now. That would help the company with manning as people would stretch for it, rather than flying at 50c on the dollar in SLB, which many will not do. Many will draw their Disability Bank down to zero and have a partial countering effect to that which the company desires. Go back and read what I wrote.
Substitution wording changed (TAFB window greater than 72 hours) in a way that might cause the removal of a screen that currently has problems but, if fixed, would aid pilots in knowing what their choices are in the most complex portion of SUB and RAT.
I will run out of time before I run out of TA.
In short, the only way to fix many of these issues, some of which are not seemingly important until it is being grieved or arbitrated, is to vote No on this very tentative agreement. Words and concepts need to be rewritten and re-explored.
So, do you care to make another deduction? Am I a garbage guts pilot who will pour an awful lot of coffee down my gullet while working under the proposed Rules of Engagement that have me sufficiently engaged to deal with the perturbations directed at me from a cubicle dweller with multiple signins?
One thing is for sure. I don't work for Oliver Wyman.
And I have a measure of discomfort also with codifying the SLB because it pays 50c on the dollar. I am partially conflicted on this issue, but not completely. I may become sorry for using nuance with you on this issue.
For the sake of being even keeled, I will go off message here. I think there are significant benefits in the fatigue section especially. My commendation to all who worked on it. Obvious care conceptually and attention to detail in the wording. Well done. I read that section and I think PSP.
But since you like to do sleuth work, what is the other significant part of our arrangement with the company that has pilots working for 50c on the dollar? Hint. If one of my suggestions that I listed were enacted, to a degree, it would be lessened; to the benefit of pilots and the company.
10-04-2015, 08:12 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 110
Originally Posted by ClutchCargo
I do not know who or what you are. You are not a line pilot for FDX. Work over vacation? It's one of the first things we learn that you can't do. Don't know your motivation and don't really care.
Others will think outside the box for ways that the company might agree to 150c on the dollar in the future.
10-04-2015, 08:41 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 110
Originally Posted by ClutchCargo
I do not know who or what you are. You are not a line pilot for FDX. Work over vacation? It's one of the first things we learn that you can't do. Don't know your motivation and don't really care.
I haven't sold back vacation during this TA process. I can't remember the last time I did.
But I do look to the future after we have a ratifiable TA and ask how we can work for more - especially if we can do so while doing less.
What if a pilot didn't want to sell his whole vacation back, but might be willing to draft on the tail end. Would you be philosophically opposed to that or would you insist that he only be allowed to take all or nothing. Or would you remove the present sellback option entirely?
Do you personally support the new, additional, way of working for 50c on the dollar while opposing new ways of working for 150c on the dollar?
By the way, I very much agree with DLax in his desire to be properly manned. The schedules have suffered from our under-manning. The lines on my airplane are getting worse four times faster than I'm moving up. I'm quite sure under-manning is not the only issue at work in that phenomenon, but it is one cause if I'm applying induction and deduction correctly.
You are so fickle in which questions you answer.
But you love to brandish invective in all your personas.
10-04-2015, 09:13 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: FDX MD11 Capt in MEM
Posts: 885
Originally Posted by PolicyWonk
An arbiter of all things FedEx. You must feel very clever. But Occam's Razor continues to elude you.
I haven't sold back vacation during this TA process. I can't remember the last time I did.
But I do look to the future after we have a ratifiable TA and ask how we can work for more - especially if we can do so while doing less.
What if a pilot didn't want to sell his whole vacation back, but might be willing to draft on the tail end. Would you be philosophically opposed to that or would you insist that he only be allowed to take all or nothing. Or would you remove the present sellback option entirely?
Do you personally support the new, additional, way of working for 50c on the dollar while opposing new ways of working for 150c on the dollar?
By the way, I very much agree with DLax in his desire to be properly manned. The schedules have suffered from our under-manning. The lines on my airplane are getting worse four times faster than I'm moving up. I'm quite sure under-manning is not the only issue at work in that phenomenon, but it is one cause if I'm applying induction and deduction correctly.
You are so fickle in which questions you answer.
But you love to brandish invective in all your personas.
I haven't sold back vacation during this TA process. I can't remember the last time I did.
But I do look to the future after we have a ratifiable TA and ask how we can work for more - especially if we can do so while doing less.
What if a pilot didn't want to sell his whole vacation back, but might be willing to draft on the tail end. Would you be philosophically opposed to that or would you insist that he only be allowed to take all or nothing. Or would you remove the present sellback option entirely?
Do you personally support the new, additional, way of working for 50c on the dollar while opposing new ways of working for 150c on the dollar?
By the way, I very much agree with DLax in his desire to be properly manned. The schedules have suffered from our under-manning. The lines on my airplane are getting worse four times faster than I'm moving up. I'm quite sure under-manning is not the only issue at work in that phenomenon, but it is one cause if I'm applying induction and deduction correctly.
You are so fickle in which questions you answer.
But you love to brandish invective in all your personas.
Jesus, I'm going to join busdrvr12 for that drink...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
