The ratios effectively only control the number of "penalty" RP-24 lines that must be placed in the B-757 bid period package. They don't require The Company to increase the number of B-767 pilots.


[ECHO]The ratios effectively only control the number of "penalty" RP-24 lines that must be placed in the B-757 bid period package. They don't require The Company to increase the number of B-767 pilots. [/ECHO]


I contend that the cost of more RP-24 lines in the peak months will be more than offset by the savings of manning the B-767 lean during the off-peak months. At most, I believe the overall cost of 2 RP-24 lines is less than the cost of Draft pay.


Or man both a/c fatter to keep the ratios correct.

As with any aircraft fleet, The Company makes an assessment of how much risk they can bear and how much they're willing to pay to reduce the risk of undermanning. If they can rely on carryover, make-up, vacation buy back, draft, and volunteer, they can run with fewer bodies and still meet service commitments. If those methods don't work, they'll need more bodies, so they'll have to man a little fatter. In the B-767 world, the risk of undermanning is further reduced by the fact that B-757 pilots can be used. No other fleet has that option, so no other fleet can afford to be manned as lean as the B-767.

What if ... and I'm just spitballin' here ... we had a mechanism to look back and see how well the formula of ratios has worked, and require a vacancy posting for 1 B-767 Captain if The Company has to use "penalty" RP-24 lines for a Captain 3 months in a row?

What if ... we add another element to the ratios that accounts for The Company's tendancy to meet the Scheduled CH target with Actual CH earned for the month. If the ACH for B-767 flying is historically 107% of SCH, put 107% in the "manning formula". Define "historically" for the purposes of the forumla as the last 4 months.

How does SCH correlate to days of work? In the grand scheme of things, we want a day's pay for a day's work. Does the SCH metric reflect this? If not, how do we adjust the formula to account for a day of work?

As I see it, the cost of an RP-24 and the weakness of the manning formula will NOT prevent The Company from manning the B-767 significantly leaner than any other airplane.






.

For the small number of airplanes we'll see before the end of the year, I think it's worth getting a peek at what The Company really intends to do to us, what tricks they have up their sleeves. We're in Section 6 negotiations, it is not out of the question to negotiate work rules. There will be no Section 26.K. arbitration -- we already agree it's a wide-body airplane.

Let's continue to negotiate to protect the number of wide-body seats the airplane should have, to protect B-757 Flex Instructors, to fill the holes with explicit language. We don't have to settle out of fear that the alternative is the scary outlaw behind Door Number 2.

(Part of me wants to say, "Let those guys wearing the B-767 lanyards fly the airplanes at narrow-body pay while we work out the rules," but that wouldn't be very fraternal, would it? )


Was that brief enough?



.

Here is where you and I disagree. Yes we are in Section 6.
Yes our Current contract is valid until amended.

Section 26 K. is still valid and barring a quick conclusion to Section 6 ( a quick Ratifiable Conclusion that is, I don't see a quick Ratifiable Contract), even if this LOA is voted down, before the Company posts and begins to operate the 767.

Further, until this LOA is signed, WE have not Agreed that the 767 is a wide body. The Company's offer was it is in the NB bid pack and only paid an override only when operated, mixed 757/767 trips would not pay for entire trip just for the wide body leg. The Company can say they only agreed to it per the terms of the LOA, and if we vote it down, it is back to the drawing board. mostly section 26K since the company can say we tried but no deal is reached. Then they just do what they want and we leave it up to an Arbitrator or now have to negotiate back what we already had in this LOA. But I predict back to Section 26K because I do not see Section 6 Concluding (JMHO) until Peak of this year at the very earliest and 767's will be flying one way or another this August.

I agree with you. The company will exploit the LOA to their advantage just like they will exploit any future CBA we ratify. Either way is a Gamble, We could do it your way in hopes of something better, but with the current 26 K language and historical Membership support I don't like our Odds. I think we are better off cutting our losses and getting this issue concluded. One less thing to address when the Bigger ticket items are discussed in the next rounds. Negotiations is give and take and if the Membership doesn't or won't support the NC it is more give and less take for us. Just look at open time are there any DP's left? I think you and I agree on that point.