active_herk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2002
- Posts
- 188
Be careful with disputed pairings!!
PurpleTail,
Actually, most of the trips in open time in ANC were disputed pairings. This brings up a good point though. I hope FDX guys are paying attention to the union emails (if you don't get the union emails, make sure you go to the ALPA website and get listed) regarding disputed pairings. The company likes to put nice deadheads and layovers on pairings that are disputed in the hopes that the pilots will fly them anyway. In doing so, they can come back to the union after guys pick them up in open time or ask for them on secondaries and say, "see, there isn't anything wrong with these pairings, the pilots are picking them up despite you (the union) saying there is something wrong with them." After a few months of this, the union can no longer dispute the pairings, and then the company can start using the trip sequences that the union disputed in other pairings...ones that NO LONGER contain the cushy deadhead and layover. That pairing then becomes very onerous, and there is nothing the union can do about it. Of course the crewmembers will now complain about how the pairings are getting worse, but we have in essence become our own worst enemy, and have tied the union’s collective hands behind their backs. Anyway, here are the disputed pairings for Feb, reprinted from the union letter (so at least the FDX guys who check out this board know what to stay away from):
A-300: NONE
727: NONE
MD-11 MEM: #11, #26, # 803 disputed for two legs to Asia out of ANC. (ANC-NRT-KIX) #811 disputed for two legs to Asia out of ANC. (ANC-NRT- NGO) #24, #324, #811, #813 are disputed for two legs ALA-CDG- GCN. This is a long-leg/short-leg and unnecessary in our opinion.
MD-11 ANC: #48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 64, 67, 84, 85, 86, 832, 833, 834, 835, 836, 837, 845, 848, 853, 854, 855 are disputed for two legs out of ANC, long-leg/short-leg footprint, and inappropriate use of an RFO.
MD-11 LAX: #43 disputed for two legs out of ANC.
DC-10: NONE
Also, be careful regarding changes to the above-mentioned trips. For instance, trip 48 in ANC has a 1048 listed in open time. When looking at the revised pairing, if the reason it was disputed is revised, it is ok to fly. If it isn’t, then you will be helping all of us out by not flying it. The company likes to change the pairing and entice us to fly it but keep the nasty part of it in place. They will even go so far as to attach a deadhead to it and give it to another base. It still makes for a bad deal!
PurpleTail said:I just looked at ANC Open Time and it is LOADED with easy RFO trips while LAX has nothing but crap O/B trips, explains why everyone is leaving LAX for MEM.
PurpleTail,
Actually, most of the trips in open time in ANC were disputed pairings. This brings up a good point though. I hope FDX guys are paying attention to the union emails (if you don't get the union emails, make sure you go to the ALPA website and get listed) regarding disputed pairings. The company likes to put nice deadheads and layovers on pairings that are disputed in the hopes that the pilots will fly them anyway. In doing so, they can come back to the union after guys pick them up in open time or ask for them on secondaries and say, "see, there isn't anything wrong with these pairings, the pilots are picking them up despite you (the union) saying there is something wrong with them." After a few months of this, the union can no longer dispute the pairings, and then the company can start using the trip sequences that the union disputed in other pairings...ones that NO LONGER contain the cushy deadhead and layover. That pairing then becomes very onerous, and there is nothing the union can do about it. Of course the crewmembers will now complain about how the pairings are getting worse, but we have in essence become our own worst enemy, and have tied the union’s collective hands behind their backs. Anyway, here are the disputed pairings for Feb, reprinted from the union letter (so at least the FDX guys who check out this board know what to stay away from):
A-300: NONE
727: NONE
MD-11 MEM: #11, #26, # 803 disputed for two legs to Asia out of ANC. (ANC-NRT-KIX) #811 disputed for two legs to Asia out of ANC. (ANC-NRT- NGO) #24, #324, #811, #813 are disputed for two legs ALA-CDG- GCN. This is a long-leg/short-leg and unnecessary in our opinion.
MD-11 ANC: #48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 64, 67, 84, 85, 86, 832, 833, 834, 835, 836, 837, 845, 848, 853, 854, 855 are disputed for two legs out of ANC, long-leg/short-leg footprint, and inappropriate use of an RFO.
MD-11 LAX: #43 disputed for two legs out of ANC.
DC-10: NONE
Also, be careful regarding changes to the above-mentioned trips. For instance, trip 48 in ANC has a 1048 listed in open time. When looking at the revised pairing, if the reason it was disputed is revised, it is ok to fly. If it isn’t, then you will be helping all of us out by not flying it. The company likes to change the pairing and entice us to fly it but keep the nasty part of it in place. They will even go so far as to attach a deadhead to it and give it to another base. It still makes for a bad deal!