It's a wide body issue for sure. The 756/76T, 777, 787, 747 all are affected.

It's a big big deal.

We will be continuing to do IOE for the next 5 years on these fleets as well as line checks. Line checks on a 4 man airplane are also causing problems. The check airman forces you into coach in many occasions when your real seat is in the cockpit.

 

While I see a good amount of newhire's getting the 756, there is no way that they are going to put 40 a month on the thing.. at least not in EWR.
BUT-
If they do decided to do 40 a month for a few months.. that would be a huge amount of IOE flying for Spring and Summer. That would really hit the EWR 756 flying hard.

Figuring that each NH IOE pilot needs 2 trips, that's 80 trips...
LCA do either 4 or 5 trips a month. So now you need around 20 LCA's to keep up with IOE. Do we have that many LCA's in EWR?!

Of course.. they could send some IOE to IAH and IAD, but still..
Gonna be a good time to be a NH on the 756. Could be a lot of free time!

Motch

PS> They REALLY need to get the 756 and 76T combined.. sooner than later~

 

Its not just new hires. Its ALL widebody FOs that are affected by this. Have you seen the last few bids? There are a lot of new widebody FOs. This affects all those fleets.

 

May 2016 from the last Flight Ops Uneducatedguess

 

For sure it is an issue for every pilot on the property! Thankfully our Union is taking the Company to task on this issue and all other issues. I thank them!!! This Company loser management team needs to honor our contract literally and in good faith - something they are not used to doing. Any LCA in violation of said contract should not be a LCA.

 

Indeed! The MEC Grievance Committee is creating significant value for the current, and all future contracts by establishing and re-establishing ALPA's contractual rights. I've lost track of the wins by the grievance committee since the UPA was signed. If anyone has a list of the system board awards, please post it. My guess is that this committee has preserved millions and millions of dollars for current and future United pilots.

Assuming LCAs have personal integrity and value the collective strength of a union, I don't understand why they'd assist in the adulteration of the contract. They are volunteers, as such they can choose not to be an LCA. Senior management proves daily that they lack the integrity to lead the pilot group (only manage them, poorly) or engage all employees to be an unstoppable force in the industry. It's a shame that LCAs would haul that line for few pieces of silver, is this 1982/84 all over again?

 

Presuming someone in management is at least as smart as me ( pretty low bar), it won't be hard for them to figure this out.
They will publish only trips for FO's - No IRO trips. There is not such position in the FAR's.
The company can re-write the portion on the FOM and FM to change the term IRO to second FO.

The augmented flights will likely have two FO's, as required by FAR's.

They will be designated FO1 and FO2.

We did something similar in the Air Force on augmented trips. I think they were called First Pilot, Second Pilot.

Remember when augmenting started in jets. There was a flight engineer. So the "IRO" was a Captain qualified Second Officer- or vice versa, whoever the company could get to bid it. It was a distinct position that paid more than FO- less than captain. The IRO had to maintain currency in both seats.

I digress however. The blame for this all rests with the FAA. Util recently the IRO or Bunkie just didn't show for the trip when IOE was conducted. He was FBO'd.

It was the FAA who decided he had to stay on the trip, since the IOE guy was "not quailfied". The Union should have fought hard against this with the FAA. If the IOE receiver is not qualified on an international flight, he isn't for domestic either, so ALL IOE flights should have a bunkie to relieve the Captain when he has to pee!

ALPA decided to remain silent on the FAA decision, figuring they would just lay it all on the company, so now we have this mess.

Wonder how it is done at DL and AA?

 

Not so fast.....

Or at least not until "we" (the collective pilots via our union) make a concession to our contract. There is a reason the union was able to win the grievance in front of the arbitrator.

 

I'm not following you. What part would require a concession?
If the company only publishes FO trips and leaves the decision to the captain on which FO sit's where- where is the contract violation?

There is no IRO position on the system bid.

 

That may have been the CAL way but for UAL it was the flying FO who was displaced with pay. The bunkie still went to work. Be it a FO or Captain IOE or even a TK trip.

The FAA changed to rules because they didn't like the idea of a FO and a "non qualified" pilot (Captain or FO) being together alone in the cockpit while the LCA was on break. Hence why they now require double augmentation.

As far as just changing to same numbered pairings with FO1 and FO2, that would be an interesting grievance since it changes current and a long used past practice.

Plus for the ultra long haul flying it could be a fatigue issue if one expects to be bunkie, and go on break first comes to work "tired" and prepared to to go to sleep while on first break but now is expected to be awake for the next 7 hours instead...or vice versa....be prepared to be awake for a long time, and now expected to go to sleep soon after departure. No good for fatigue planning.

DC