I'm getting a headstart on this for July, as I'll probably be busy around the "Open View/Add" time, and I'd rather be early than late. July '07 is the target date for implementation of "ability to flag trips as 'disputed'," so maybe we'll get a little relief on this problem soon. (Deadline is October '07 -- anybody taking bets on when it will actually happen? )



Disputed Pairings

The following is the FedEx MEC’s definitive list of the pairings that are disputed for July 2007. These pairings should not be available in any bid pack lines and should not be assigned to any Secondary lines without a specific request, by pairing number, from the crewmember to do so.

A-300: NONE

727: #201, #202, #203, #204, #205 The ALPA SIG believes these pairings now follow the long MEM-BOS-IND critical period with the IND-BOS-EWR critical period. Arriving late at the IND hotel about 1000 for a poor sleep opportunity, the crew will then work until late the next morning in the high workload NE corridor during rush hour. This construction is a dispute continued from last month.

MD11 MEM: NONE

MD11 ANC: NONE

MD11LAX: # 47/July 03 According to the ALPA SIG the pairing is disputed for 2 reasons. We believe that the current design leaves two areas which are less than desirable. The first duty period operates LAX-MEM in the morning followed by a 14-hour layover. The second duty period departs MEM on the a.m. launch and operates MEM-ANC. This design requires the crewmember to swap their body clocks after operating a daytime leg and then operate a 6:47 block trip to ANC on the a.m. launch. The second area of concern occurs in the 6th duty period after operating SFS-NRT-KIX on the a.m. launch. Your arrival time in KIX is 1025L which, after the long taxi ride, places you at the hotel in the early afternoon. Trying to find time before the 0305L alert for meaningful rest is dicey. The crew then operates a transoceanic leg to OAK.

DC10: NONE

Web Critique Sheets

Please use the form on our website, now available to all domiciles and dues-paying members; it gets to us without prior Company review. Your input is the most valuable tool we have to solving scheduling issues. Another option is to directly E-mail the SIG or PSIT. The appropriate E-mail addresses are located after the PSIT member’s names in the following sections of the PSIT notes. This provides quick access to any SIG/PSIT member. Thanks to those who have written and provided invaluable information on pairings and lines.



Click on the dates to look at the Trip Recap for each Disputed Pairing. (Access to FedEx VIPS required, of course.)






727: #201, #202, #203, #204, #205

Trip 201 TU Jun 26 Only
Trip 202 TU Jul 10 - Jul 24
Trip 203 WE Jun 27 Only
Trip 204 WE Jul 11 - Jul 25
Trip 205 TH Jun 28 - Jul 26


Trip 201 MEM 27 26JUN07

Trip 202 MEM 27 10JUL07
Trip 202 MEM 27 17JUL07
Trip 202 MEM 27 24JUL07

Trip 203 MEM 27 27JUN07

Trip 204 MEM 27 11JUL07
Trip 204 MEM 27 18JUL07
Trip 204 MEM 27 25JUL07

Trip 205 MEM 27 28JUN07
Trip 205 MEM 27 05JUL07
Trip 205 MEM 27 12JUL07
Trip 205 MEM 27 19JUL07
Trip 205 MEM 27 26JUL07





MD11LAX: # 47/July 03


Trip 47 LAX 11 03JUL07







The good news is none of these seats are filled by volunteers. Let's see if we can keep it that way.




.

I especially liked how the A300 YYC trip(595/JUNE) is no longer disputed. It certainly wasn't fixed. In fact, based on why it was disputed, its worse.

Just guessing. But, I believe we can thank our DP flyers for that.

Ooops. I was way out to lunch.

I guess they did fix it. They added 3 minutes to the layover. And, reduced the scheduled flight time by 8 minutes.

How refreshing, that will be.

ONLY because they can't YET. Give them a chance!

Tony,

First, thanks for taking the time to make excellent posts like this ! Apparently we need all the help we can get in highlighting the DP process and start treating those who choose to be Independent Contractors like they deserve.

The other reason for my post is the "Ability to flag trips as disputed", I have it from good sources that this is NOT going to happen. Essentially the language to allow this was in the new CBA at one point but did not make the "final cut". The reference to this in the Automation and Implementation Index was never removed and you will not find language in section 25. I think we should push the Company on this, maybe some letters to Management and the union would help. This is a zero cost item but the company must not have thought that way.

Thanks again Tony !

Thats 3 more minutes where guys can listen to the construction at the hotel while they are trying to sleep.............

Ahemm. You should recognize this as good CRM. Find something to praise.






.

Like I told the captain, just the other day: "that is the best job I've ever seen of screwing up that approach." How's that for good CRM skills.

You woke up for that?

Since the guys and gals picking up DPs are trying to ****** you, doesn't looking at the DP count as porn?