ABX guys, confirm/deny...?

[AV8OR]

Can anybody on the ABX side either confirm or deny the rumor on our side that yall made contractual relief for DHL so that yall could gain, even temporarily, the transcon work from the A-300 to the 767?

Not trying to start something, seriously. If it's true, don't even care to argue about it on here. Just like to know where we stand. I'm in the process of trying to decide whether or not to punt the last five years of my life.

Thanks........

 

[LarryinTN]

The rumor is a bit misleading.

Day/night transitions are limited to one in a block of work (i.e. a week of work). The transition must be at the beginning or end of the block and there must be a 16hr layover in between the day and night schedules. With that restriction the transcon can not be crewed because it starts and ends with day segments and has a night segment in the middle. That's two day/night transitions in one block.

What we did was allow the two day/night transitions on this specific trip but, in order to do that, they must increase the required layovers from 16+ hours to 24+ hours.

So they got relief on the day/night transition issue and we got an improvement in the required minimum layover. Works for us because the longer layovers address the original problem that the day/night transition rule was designed to prevent. The trips have SFO layovers of 25, 26, 48 or 73 hours and JFK layovers of 28 or 74 hours.

This type of trip was never envisioned when that rule was negotiated. It's in place for completely different reasons.

 

[Clipperskip]

Day/Night Transitions

LJ is completely right regrading the intent of the day/night transition contract language. So much of our line construction rules were based upon flying we use to do, or expected to do, years prior to the Astar/ABX consolidation. This temporary relief to our company's line construction parameters came only after the company addressed the day/night transition with extra rest on both ends, eliminating the day/night transition concern. It is my understanding that we did not pursue this one transcon sequence just like we didn't pursue the parking of approximately 12 DC-9's and 6 DC-8's. Similar line construction relief has been in place on the B767 since its addition to our fleet circa 1998. Just ask one of our B767 crewmembers about the "long lasting" B767 side letter. Like you, I am not trying to start something on this board because ultimately I believe that our futures are linked together. It is apparent that DHL likes the economics of the B767 over the A300, this is understandable and is a plus for ABX. It is also apparent that DHL does not like the economics of our DC-8-60's, a plus for Astar. This has been a tough time for us all. On a personal note I have been an ABX captain for 9 years and I am very close to being forced to the right seat after the consolidation. I am not complaining just trying to make the point that we all are making considerable personal adjustments after the "Big Bang". I do believe that this is a good forum to address the rumors that pop up concerning our airlines and discuss them in a intelligent way and your question is a good one.

 

[AV8OR]

Thanks for the explanation guys.

As you may or may not know, our management has come to us with a number of "proposals" that might make our current contract, in their words "favorable" to DHL. We are in mediated bargaining right now. We have thus far told them to "pound sand". Any and all flying that has changed hands one way or the other has had no bearing on, nor been gained with the help of any contractual side letters or changes. Not saying it won't happen at some point, but thus far it has not.

Back to the vacation.

 

[LarryinTN]

We don't have any philosophical objection to adjusting the work rules to fit new types of flying as long as we're getting something back to address the concerns which prompted the rules in the first place.

The reason for the day/night transition rule was to prevent multiple transitions between the regular ILN-XYZ-ILN night sort and the regular SDS day sort trips which would reek havoc on a guys sleep patterns (as you guys have found out with all of those out-and-backs that you are doing). The one-time per block exemption was to accommodate the Sunday trips and allow the addition of a single day duty period either into ILN on Sunday morning to end a block or out from ILN on Sunday afternoon to begin a block.

Clipper mentioned another example, the 767 side letter. That letter allowed them to build some 767 lines that did not comply with the minimum blocks of days off and minimum blocks of days on. This was needed because the first 767s did nothing but west coast trips which could not be flown back to back due to the FAA 8 in 24 rule. The letter wasn't just a "concession" on the work rule, however, in return we got a concession from them which was that any such line would have to have four extra days off, 19 vs. 15. Those lines tend to be rather popular with those who live in Ohio because of the extra days off. I think that they're also quite popular for folks with vacation weeks as the greater number of days off can produce bigger blocks off for a week of vacation.

In past years the company had come to us with requests for deviations that were completely one sided. They'd want us to just delete a sentence or paragraph from the contract with nothing in return and they had no interest in negotiating, they just wanted us to agree. Those requests never got anywhere. In recent months the company's attitude seems to have changed. They are now coming to us with a problem and are working with us, listening to our problems, trying to find a solution which will solve the problems on both sides. This has proven to be much more effective.

Why the change? I don't know. Maybe too much glycol leaked into the local water supply over the winter? The same change in attitude has apparently reached contract negotiations as well. I just hope it continues.