Kalitta Air now accepting FO applications
04-23-2017, 09:45 PM
#2941
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: Doing Just Fine
Posts: 356
I agree. I would like to know how they are allowed to build a line at a later date. We have for years had similar lines to Asiana (DWC etc) and they were always considered hard lines with a min guarantee, you flew as and when you were needed. However with CS building a line after the fact they have now been given the ability to use layover days to not pay you or assign R days.
The contract says lines must be built from known flying not constructed at a later date. The Union has been doing some back door deals of late disguised as "experimental" (this 1 status per day BS has already cost me plenty of $$), they don't tell us why etc., we are just supposed to deal with it.
The contract says lines must be built from known flying not constructed at a later date. The Union has been doing some back door deals of late disguised as "experimental" (this 1 status per day BS has already cost me plenty of $$), they don't tell us why etc., we are just supposed to deal with it.
04-24-2017, 06:49 AM
#2942
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 153
Kalitta article in USA Today
Short article and some good pictures on one less -200.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...ent/100736118/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...ent/100736118/
04-24-2017, 09:29 AM
#2943
VHR-very happily retired
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: Retired
Posts: 1,409
Originally Posted by Reserve
Over 70 hours of flying? No.
Over 70 hours of credit? Yes, but not paid. If my concerns are founded, but we wouldn't know because the union has not communicated the intent with us.
What appears to being lost is the 4 hours per day that a status is required since they are not "hard lines" as defined by the contract.
We don't know for sure what the asiana lines have in them. They aren't in the bid package, built later, and presumably only emailed to those who are on the lines. You are correct, that if higher than 64 (seemingly 70 now since that was in the email) that would become the guarantee.
I happened to be on a double crew line last month and got an email from AL about our line being built for us because I was to be added as the 4th to the Asiana line holders. (I didn't end up doing it, they wanted me elsewhere) It had 54 hours of credit on 5 days of duty (4 flight days, 1 DH) so there are 11 days left. Subtract the 3 1/7's and you have 8 days that should have 4 hours credit = 32 hours. Add that to the 54 hard hours to get 86 hours. If they are allowed to call these published lines (they aren't published in the bid package as required per the contract) and assign layover days there is a loss of 16 hours pay here by "giving up" statuses for layovers on that line.
Full disclosure: The last day of flying on that particular line was the 13th. So if released you would loose 3 days at 4 hours. 86-12 is still greater than the 70 they want to pay us for it. You do get home early, which is great, but loose 12 hours pay. (Yes there would be travel, but I left it out since it is different for everyone)
So if we are allowing them to build lines after they are required to be in the bid package, why such a low value being associated to them? Why not a more equitable 75-80. Some months they win, some we win. With 70 they will win every time. Or, did we negotiate this for something elsewhere that is a win for us?
Over 70 hours of credit? Yes, but not paid. If my concerns are founded, but we wouldn't know because the union has not communicated the intent with us.
What appears to being lost is the 4 hours per day that a status is required since they are not "hard lines" as defined by the contract.
We don't know for sure what the asiana lines have in them. They aren't in the bid package, built later, and presumably only emailed to those who are on the lines. You are correct, that if higher than 64 (seemingly 70 now since that was in the email) that would become the guarantee.
I happened to be on a double crew line last month and got an email from AL about our line being built for us because I was to be added as the 4th to the Asiana line holders. (I didn't end up doing it, they wanted me elsewhere) It had 54 hours of credit on 5 days of duty (4 flight days, 1 DH) so there are 11 days left. Subtract the 3 1/7's and you have 8 days that should have 4 hours credit = 32 hours. Add that to the 54 hard hours to get 86 hours. If they are allowed to call these published lines (they aren't published in the bid package as required per the contract) and assign layover days there is a loss of 16 hours pay here by "giving up" statuses for layovers on that line.
Full disclosure: The last day of flying on that particular line was the 13th. So if released you would loose 3 days at 4 hours. 86-12 is still greater than the 70 they want to pay us for it. You do get home early, which is great, but loose 12 hours pay. (Yes there would be travel, but I left it out since it is different for everyone)
So if we are allowing them to build lines after they are required to be in the bid package, why such a low value being associated to them? Why not a more equitable 75-80. Some months they win, some we win. With 70 they will win every time. Or, did we negotiate this for something elsewhere that is a win for us?
04-24-2017, 09:56 AM
#2944
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 386
Originally Posted by Intel33
Short article and some good pictures on one less -200.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...ent/100736118/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...ent/100736118/
04-24-2017, 10:22 AM
#2945
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: Licking the window
Posts: 461
04-24-2017, 04:28 PM
#2946
New Hire
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by Intel33
Short article and some good pictures on one less -200.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...ent/100736118/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...ent/100736118/
Slick
04-24-2017, 05:16 PM
#2948
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 153
One more time
Not sure why the link didn't copy correctly. The auto notification of a response has the correct link, as does it when I try to quote. May depend on how you are viewing the thread.
https://amp-usatoday-com.cdn.ampproj...ory/100736118/
https://amp-usatoday-com.cdn.ampproj...ory/100736118/
Originally Posted by Intel33
Short article and some good pictures on one less -200.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...ent/100736118/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...ent/100736118/
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
