The fact is the passover pay issue may be "different" than the current "retro" issues for a host of valid, legal reasons.

What has concerned me, and a bunch of other ALPA members in good standing, are these main points.

FDX ALPA seems willing to make a lot of noise and go the mat for the senior guys, but not for the junior ones.

FDX ALPA seems to do make a lot of decisions behind closed doors and does not feel very compelled to include the membership in the process.

Period. That's it. For you guys defending our MEC, all I ask it you emphasize to our current leadership the importance of A) maintaining some transparency and B) letting the junior guys know you are in their camp too.

For you guys upset with the MEC...here's your challenge. Get involved. Go to the meetings. Talk to your block rep. (Poor Sleepy is probably pretty sick of my calls...even though he's not my rep I know him to be a reasonable guy with a good head on his shoulders).

And...the next challenge...I think you need to take the block 8 rep up on his "you know what to do if you don't think I am doing a good job" letter. I think you need to run for block 7 rep too. I think we need some new MEC blood for the same reason we don't want FLEX guys camping in the schoolhouse forever. So--which of you (us) is going to step up?

My pushing for some new blood is based on this premise: WE NEED A STRONG UNION at FedEx. Right now a bunch of guys have lost faith in the process. The way to get it back is not by watching more Dave Webb videos or having someone else explain in contractual terms why getting $150 is the best they can do, but the fight for retro is the right thing to do. The way to get back unity is to have some representation the block members can believe in. Good or bad, right or wrong....I don't think that's the case now. I've always been a supporter of our team on these boards, but I see too many young guys wringing their hands and saying "heck with ALPA" or "I'm done..." or "what does it matter...." A common reaction from the old guard is "well..p*ss on you then" and "who needs you anyway" and "you are being a crybaby". That doesn't help either and remember--those block 8 guys today are the future leadership of the union in 10 years. It does matter, we do need each other, and its time to get ready for the next fight.

This horse is bloody but what they hay...I'll throw a Baby Ruth in the punch bowl.

I called contract enforcement after getting what I thought were the facts. My impression junior dude checked out before senior dude i.e. passover? I don't know so I call the experts and get treated like crap. Now maybe S.A. lost in cricket that day or he got the stiff arm from the wife, who knows who cares. Is it a gray area, loop hole in the CBA or did the company screw up and some dudes got hosed. Is my rep addressing this? Yes. Will anything come of it, who knows? Does the MEC care? I don't know.

Bottom line...was pure seniority protected? No. Why? Too much money for the grievance, couple hundred new guys who don't deserve WB pay, we won't win so why try, other? My opinion is fight hard to protect all seniority equally or don't...but don't preach to the masses that seniority must be protected and only fight certain battles i.e. retro.

Tell me where in The Contract it says that every name added to the MEM MD-11 FO list must be added in seniority order, and I'll agree that seniority was not protected. That is NOT the way it is.

MEM FO's were trained in seniority order.

ANC FO's were transferred to MEM in seniority order.

That's the way the contract is written.

Some of you still seem to think that something should supercede the contract to demand that training and transfers follow the same seniority order. I'm very sorry, but that's just not the way it works.


Nobody said a "couple hundred new guys ... don't deserve WB pay" so we won't grieve it. That's BS, and you know it, and to chartacterize it that way is unfair. It's no surprise that the guys in Contract Enforcement got a little long in the jaw trying to defend themselves against that sort of argument. I think they went beyond the call of duty to even take it the first step of the grievance process, which they did. (That's how some folks actually got money out of the deal.) The fact that they didn't carry the grievance process even further was not because it would have cost money. Every grievance we pursue costs money, and we still grieve. The point is it would have thrown money after a lost cause. It would have been wasted money, because the grievance could not have been won.


Seniority was not abrogated.




Still waiting for the CBA Paragraph.





.

Tony,
I thought in my post I said it was my opinion, I'll have to reread it. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else just stating my opinion. Hope we can still do that.

Obviously it's OK to share opinions -- that's what we're all doing, right?

I clearly understood when you said it's your opinion that the union should fight hard to protect all seniority equally. I agree.


Where we disagree is whether the Passover Pay issue was a seniority issue. In the sentences prior to "My opinion is ..." you stated seniority was not protected because it would have cost too much money for the grievance, and a couple hundred new guys don't deserve WB pay. That sounds like a false claim (senority was not protected) and unfair charges against -- ourselves, us, the union. Those were not the reasons a grievance was not pursued, and that's where our opinions don't matter -- there are facts that belong there.


Was it a seniority issue? I don't believe it was. The Company has two ways of putting bodies in the MEM MD-11 FO seat. One is the training pipeline. The other is the Domicile transfer. The Company used both ways properly, according to the Collective Bargaining Agreement. That's all we can demand.





.

Tony
Agree to disagree. By the way the sentence about the grievance being too much money for new guys who should be happy to have a job etc are the words from contract enforcement ( our union) not me. Two sides to every story just wanted to get another side out in the open.

Pilot A MEM 727SO
Pilot B MEM 727SO

Pilot B is senior to Pilot A

Bid #1
Pilot A awarded ANC MD11FO
Pilot B awarded MEM MD11FO

Bid #2
Pilot A awarded MEM MD11FO

Pilot A has not begun training for ANC MD11FO nor has pilot B begun MEM MD11FO training when Bid #2 is awarded.

Pilot A begins training before Pilot B.

Section 24 A.5
A pilot awarded or assigned a new crew position shall not relinquish his current crew position until he has been activated into his new crew position.

What is Pilot A's crew position? His awarded position is MD11FO. Pilot A is not MD11FO current nor has he been activated in ANC. He should remain a MEM 727SO, his current crew position not his awarded position.

Section 25 D.1 Training/Activation Procedures
Except as provided in Section 24.D.2., D.3. and D.4., (below), required training for a crew position shall be scheduled by SYSTEM SENIORITY, SENIOR FIRST for that crew position.

Again, define crew position. The whole crux of this argument. The contract states a specific crew seat, in a specific aircraft type, at a specific domicile. One would think that Pilot A and Pilot B after Bid #2 have been awarded the same crew position. What's their crew position prior to the award? MEM 727SO?

Section 24 D.2
Passover Pay Due To Junior Pilot’s Early Activation
a. In case of a junior pilot’s activation to a higher paying position out of
seniority order, every senior pilot who meets the following prerequisites
shall be paid as if he had activated in that higher paying position (passover
pay):
i. the junior pilot and the senior pilot(s) hold an award for the same crew
position; and
ii. the junior pilot’s award is from the same posting as the senior pilot’s
award or from a subsequent posting; and
iii. the Company chooses to activate the junior pilot prior to the senior
pilot(s) and the junior pilot’s activation delays the training and
activation of the senior pilot(s).

Section 24 D.2.d
d. If a pilot entitled to passover pay in accordance with Section 24.D.2.,
(above), requires additional training, his passover pay shall not accrue
during the delay in training caused by his performance.
Example:
Pilots with seniority numbers 1-20 are awarded MEMxxxCap from the same
posting. Pilot 18 is activated first, because he needs no training (already having been an xxx Captain at another domicile). Pilot 15 is trained first(due to Company needs in his current crew position) and activated before
any pilot other than pilot 18. Pilots 1-17 don’t get passover pay when pilot
18 is activated because pilot 18’s activation did not delay their activations.
However, pilot 15’s activation did delay their activation (because pilot 15
took the first training slot, thereby delaying their training), and so pilots 1-14
get passover pay beginning when pilot 15 is activated.

Pilot A has not "already have been an xxx FO at another Domicile" he hasn't trained yet nor is he current on the MD11.

Pilot A trains before Pilot B. I believe B is entitled to passover.

Seniority was arbrogated when the the union didn't protect the rights of Pilot B, section 25 D.1

Pilot A trained to go to Anchorage, which is not an abrogation of seniority.


At the point in time when Pilot A transferred from ANC to MEM, he was an "already have been an XXX FO at another Domicile," equal to "Pilot 18" in the example cited, so no passover pay is warranted.



.

Should he have trained for Anchorage? One could argue Section 24 A.5 and 24 D.1 that his current crew position is MEM B727SO and awarded crew position is now MEM MD11FO. Is crew position the same as awarded position???

When he was awarded ANC MD-11 FO, he earned a spot on that list. A subsequent bid might have seen a large number of DC-10 Captains decide to bid ANC MD-11 FO, and they might have all been senior to him. Had these same DC-10 Captains bid the ANC MD-11 FO seat on the first bid, our pilot in question would not have been senior enough to hold it. But they didn't so he did. Now they want it. He was awarded it on the first bid, but he hasn't trained yet. Should he lose the slot because more senior pilots want it on the subsequent bid?

No. The slot is his, and he should be trained. That's how the system works. No abrogation of seniority.




.