Any new ABX info?

[Box-Hauler]

My point is that we need to make sure we limit any "special" scheduling ability, instead of focusing on the 76 N/S lines. My original point was to prove a problem with side letters. We need a drop dead point written into any side letter that gives a variance of any contract clause.

It is great that some people like the N/S lines on the 76. What if it was the other way around and it was a bad deal to get a Non-Standard line. Would we still have guys winning about those of us questioning the N/S scheduling ability, I think not.

Lets stay focused on the big picture and not just our own deals that we have made work for us. The big picture is ANA special schedules. We need a drop dead cluase to force the company to either meet current scheduling paramaters or renegotiate at that drop dead point. The point could be whatever we want, number of crews doing ANA work, # Aircraft flying ANA stuff, or even a calandar date.

We got lucky with the Non-Standard schedules on the 76, will we be lucky on the ANA deal, and do we want to risk it all to luck and the company's warn heart to ensure a livable schedule?

 

[Clipperskip]

The Big Picture

My point is that we need to make sure we limit any "special" scheduling ability, instead of focusing on the 76 N/S lines. My original point was to prove a problem with side letters. We need a drop dead point written into any side letter that gives a variance of any contract clause.

It is great that some people like the N/S lines on the 76. What if it was the other way around and it was a bad deal to get a Non-Standard line. Would we still have guys winning about those of us questioning the N/S scheduling ability, I think not.

Lets stay focused on the big picture and not just our own deals that we have made work for us. The big picture is ANA special schedules. We need a drop dead cluase to force the company to either meet current scheduling paramaters or renegotiate at that drop dead point. The point could be whatever we want, number of crews doing ANA work, # Aircraft flying ANA stuff, or even a calandar date.

We got lucky with the Non-Standard schedules on the 76, will we be lucky on the ANA deal, and do we want to risk it all to luck and the company's warn heart to ensure a livable schedule?

Your right Box Hauler. Let's keep our eye on the ball and look well beyond our DC-9 racetracks and our 767non-standard lines. What concerns me is the fact that once the company has enough airplanes in KIX to make an Asian crew domicile feasable then all scheduling parameters revert back to 13D. How would you like to be responsible for your transportation to KIX with one block of 7 work days then days off followed by another block of 8work days. It would be practically uncommutable. If you listened to our Negotiation Chairman in the last conference call he indicated that it was a definite possibility to see 13D scheduling once the Asian operation grows large enough. Hopefully International Operations language in our next contract would save us from this kind of nightmare. Read any T/A carefully the Devil is in the details.

 

[Box-Hauler]

On a related scheduling subject. Why do we not ask for the ability to build our own lines. A computer could easily build us any line we like.

i.e. I want to fly ever tues, wed, thur. for the whole month. As long as I fly for 15 or 16 days (month dependent) why does the company care. The company gets their coveted "productivity" and the crews get control of their lives.

To counter the senior guys arguments you (senior guys) will still get to fly where and when you want. This would fix a lot of the MLB (make line better, sick calls) that fall on some schedules. It would also save the company countless man hours of schedulers making, sorting, and awarding lines. The crews productivity will go up. You will fly when you want to. This is safer, more cost effective and more productive. Why can we not negotiate for this..........

KlipperSkip makes an excellent point. What happens if the NIX (Japan) domicile opens and they revert to the 2 bocks of work a month. With a build it yourself schedule you could decide when to fly and when to commute. This would make ILN, MIA and NIX all better domiciles.

Just a thought, any reason not to want this.............

 

[MJH767]

I talked to the chairman of the scheduling committee a while back about the "preferential bidding" system. He thought the company would be the one pushing for that. I am no sceduling expert, but he said it's not all rosey. Some people can build their perfect schedule, others take what's left over.
As far as the N/S lines I'm all for puting it into the contract, but it appears to me its a matter of whose ox is getting gored. You all don't want anyone messing with your favorite lines to make mine more desirable, don't be so surprised that I feel the same way.

 

[GoABX]

Computer based scheduling/access is not the same as Preferential Bidding System.

 

[jdflyer51]

Ta

One thing is certain we need to have plenty of time to look at this agreement to decide if we want it or not. We definitely do not want an expedited vote like last time. I can see management using ANA as an excuse to hurry it through. We really need to look at the language. Mr Starkovich is a master at turning our own words against us.

 

[ABXbooger]

ANA Skeds are out. look at the company webpage under flight schedules, click on charters. Kind of hard to understand.

 

[nitefr8dog]

I talked to the chairman of the scheduling committee a while back about the "preferential bidding" system. He thought the company would be the one pushing for that. I am no sceduling expert, but he said it's not all rosey. Some people can build their perfect schedule, others take what's left over.
As far as the N/S lines I'm all for puting it into the contract, but it appears to me its a matter of whose ox is getting gored. You all don't want anyone messing with your favorite lines to make mine more desirable, don't be so surprised that I feel the same way.

MJ, as far as ours or yours goes the nine is going away so your lines become our lines and we get the leftovers.

 

[Box-Hauler]

Computer based scheduling/access is not the same as Preferential Bidding System.

I do realize that there is a difference in the two systems. The common thread is that we would use a computer and not have to wait for someone is scheduling to answer a phone. Then after they answer hope they are in a good mood to approve your request. A computer is simple (does it meet the paramaters for a trade Y/N, if yes trade approved.)

There is a lot of options that we are not even touching on to make our lives a little easier.

 

[erichartmann]

On a related scheduling subject. Why do we not ask for the ability to build our own lines. A computer could easily build us any line we like.

i.e. I want to fly ever tues, wed, thur. for the whole month. As long as I fly for 15 or 16 days (month dependent) why does the company care. The company gets their coveted "productivity" and the crews get control of their lives.

To counter the senior guys arguments you (senior guys) will still get to fly where and when you want. This would fix a lot of the MLB (make line better, sick calls) that fall on some schedules. It would also save the company countless man hours of schedulers making, sorting, and awarding lines. The crews productivity will go up. You will fly when you want to. This is safer, more cost effective and more productive. Why can we not negotiate for this..........

KlipperSkip makes an excellent point. What happens if the NIX (Japan) domicile opens and they revert to the 2 bocks of work a month. With a build it yourself schedule you could decide when to fly and when to commute. This would make ILN, MIA and NIX all better domiciles.

Just a thought, any reason not to want this.............

In the orginal 1996 T/A agreement (rejected by the e-board prior to any vote by the membership) the negotiating committee had agreeded to a system wherein the union would build the lines based on the pairings provided by the company. Unfortunately, the language allowed the company to take full control with few protections for the members if the resulting lines of time did not meet certain parameters for productivity. The negotiating committee failed to realize that the company could easily control the resulting lines of time utilizing the pairings.

 

[MJH767]

nitefr8dog--my point is this--what I'm hearing is a certain group of people don't like N/S lines so we have to limit if not totally eliminate these lines. What no one seems to want to admit is that there is a large group who like the lines and don't want to eliminate them. To make matters worse, many of the don't likes aren't in the 76. There are plenty of lines designed for commuters, there is no reason we can't have lines for non-commuters. For quite a while now some 767 trip pairings have been such that they don't fit into our long-standing scheduling rules. Sooner or later we will have to address this.

 

[GoABX]

I think the chief concern (accurate or not) of those against those lines is 1) It is extra flexibility for the company that helps staff with few pilots and 2) it is a principle issue that the company has violated the spirit of the side letter whereby we helped them out for the 76's introduction and they are slapping us in the face by still calling the 76 a new aircraft.

 

[LarryinTN]

nitefr8dog--my point is this--what I'm hearing is a certain group of people don't like N/S lines so we have to limit if not totally eliminate these lines. What no one seems to want to admit is that there is a large group who like the lines and don't want to eliminate them.

The line construction rules are there largely to protect the junior guys who get stuck with whatever is left. If the N/S lines are being forced down to junior guys who don't want them then we need to cut back. As long as everyone who gets them wants them they aren't a problem but that's apparently not the case right now.

 

[Box-Hauler]

I think the chief concern (accurate or not) of those against those lines is 1) It is extra flexibility for the company that helps staff with few pilots and 2) it is a principle issue that the company has violated the spirit of the side letter whereby we helped them out for the 76's introduction and they are slapping us in the face by still calling the 76 a new aircraft.

GoABX is correct. The company is using the side letter to get productivity without anything for the crew memebers. (Yes I know people like the lines, but what if they did not like them, the company would still make them.) We need a drop dead cluase in the ANA language. It was sure stupidity not to have one in the side letter.

The company has already demonstrated that they will continue on with whatever "deals" we make with them to get ANA off the ground. The company will not stop whatever special scheduling paramaters we give them unless they are forced to. Has the company ever said "hey I know the 76 is not new anymore, so lets make all those 76 lines conform to the rules of the contract and we can forget all about that crazy side letter.

The company will not give up any productivty gains we give them without a knock down drag out hair pulling fight! WE MUST HAVE A DROP DEAD CLUASE IN THE ANA LANGUAGE. If we have no drop dead clause or whatever you call it we will be flying 23 days straight reguardless of whatever ANA flying we do. Even if we transit through the U.S. and could esily crew swap to a standard schedule ABX management will not give up the added productivity that adds money directly to their pockets.

QOL is distant second compared to bonuses for management.

 

[LarryinTN]

If we have no drop dead clause or whatever you call it we will be flying 23 days straight reguardless of whatever ANA flying we do. Even if we transit through the U.S. and could esily crew swap to a standard schedule ABX management will not give up the added productivity that adds money directly to their pockets.

The 23-day provision only applies to trips which commercial in and out of Asia for ANA flying. If you fly to/from Asia then you're back under straight Article 23.

 

[penguin22]

I think the chief concern (accurate or not) of those against those lines is 1) It is extra flexibility for the company that helps staff with few pilots and 2) it is a principle issue that the company has violated the spirit of the side letter whereby we helped them out for the 76's introduction and they are slapping us in the face by still calling the 76 a new aircraft.

Somebody needs to explain to me how a line that always has either 18 or 19 days off in a month is just "extra flexibility for the company that helps staff with few pilots"

 

[abxaviator]

Somebody needs to explain to me how a line that always has either 18 or 19 days off in a month is just "extra flexibility for the company that helps staff with few pilots"

Because it 's not 18 or 19 calendar days free of duty, to me a day going in to ILN at 1400 or finishing at 1300 is NOT a day off. Count the "X's", usually only 10 or 11 days actually off and there is no need to comply with minimum days off either. If the lines were made to have 15 X-days and meet all other line construction rules, there would be additional lines.

 

[Box-Hauler]

The 23-day provision only applies to trips which commercial in and out of Asia for ANA flying. If you fly to/from Asia then you're back under straight Article 23.

I am trying to think like the company here so bear with me:

Lets say the trip starts in Asia and transits the U.S. (maybe even Alaska). Are you saying that they could not fly us over to Asia just to get the 23 days of productivity from us? That is definately something they would do if they could.

 

[Box-Hauler]

Because it 's not 18 or 19 calendar days free of duty, to me a day going in to ILN at 1400 or finishing at 1300 is NOT a day off. Count the "X's", usually only 10 or 11 days actually off and there is no need to comply with minimum days off either. If the lines were made to have 15 X-days and meet all other line construction rules, there would be additional lines.

As said above there would be "additional lines" which equals MORE PILOTS, MORE OPPORTUNITY, MORE UPGRADES, MORE MORE MORE.

So what am I missing. Why do we (the pilot group as a whole) want to keep these N/S lines?

Yes I would love to have "local" lines for guys who want some flexability, but lets slay one draggon at a time.

 

[LarryinTN]

Lets say the trip starts in Asia and transits the U.S. (maybe even Alaska). Are you saying that they could not fly us over to Asia just to get the 23 days of productivity from us?

The 23 day schedule is only additional productivity to them because of the $9000 commercial deadheads and the "lost" days they entail. You still work only half of the days in your three-month bid period and have the other half off and at home.

With a 23 on/off schedule you're losing 13% of your work days to commercialling. If it were a 30 on/off schedule, as the company wanted, you'd lose only 10% of your work days to commercialling. If you tried to do it with the current 8-day blocks you'd be losing 38% of your work days to commercialling.

If the company had a way to have us work while flying to/from asia they reclaim the 13% productivity that is now being lost to commercialling days plus they save a ~$9000 round trip airline ticket per 23-day block. That sounds to me like some pretty strong motivation for them to use any opportunities to work us to/from Asia instead of commercialling into a 23-day block.