FedEx Seat Bid BIG (Part2...since some [Moderator] moved it to Cargo)

[active_herk]

Be careful with disputed pairings!!

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!

 

[Huck]

- I have flown the -10 and -11, and sat in the back for two years in our 72's. I would put new hires in the -11 with no problem. All (o.k. almost all) approaches are to Cat III ILS 12,000 foot runways. Autothrottles. The FMS is like having a third guy up front. It's got more power than the fires of Hell. It is (in my opinion) easier to land. The 72 scared the $%^^% out of me a couple of times. The reason it has three pilots is they couldn't fit four.

- FDX used to train at Finnair in Helsinki. Saw the FDX MD11 model in the lobby. I did a month there for GAC.

- They can put the new hires in ANC on this one, because they will be at the end of the training letter and will probably get 9 months or so on the line on the panel of Das Boot. (You know, the sub - big round gauges, steam leaking out of pipes, people shouting....)

 

[active_herk]

Tony C,


By making the MD-11 pay higher you aren't going to get senior guys at ANC. You are going to get senior guys flying the MD-10 lines from MEM-ATL (which they already have). Now you make international override, lets say for sake of arguement, $20 to $25 or even higher. Then all of a sudden being based in ANC is a 20% pay raise for a first officer (every trip out o ANC gets international override). You don't think ANC would become a little bit more senior then? With the mix of fleet type in the MD-11, I just don't see how you can differentiate pay between the MD-11 and DC-10. But I am just a line slug. What do I know.

One interesting side note: if you raise the international override by that much, the difference between MD-11 FO and 727 Capt pay rates will become fairly small. You may now have a problem with junior guys becoming captains on the boeing rather than MD-11 FOs. The solution? Raise the 727 Capt rates even higher!!!! I'm sure no one would disagree with that!

 

[Los1]

Das Boot!!! That's Funny, LOL!!

TonyC--You are on
Go Birds!!!
Los1

 

[Mr Zog]

Huck, I totally agree. Delta, AA, and United never had problems putting new hires on the 757 or 767. Why should we. I know people in training now who would have no problem with MD-11 F/O training. In fact they would be a lot more comfortable in the right seat of an MD-11, than they ever will in the back of a B-727. Seniority should never be an issue in regards to wether or not to award seat bids.

As far as ANC. I always enjoyed the flying there. However, when they opened LAX and I could sit reserve at home, it was too good to pass up. But I would fly out of ANC before I go back to MEM.

 

[PurpleTail]

PurpleTail,


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!

Good point Active_Herk, I do keep an eye on disputed pairings but usually only the ones in LA (which is hardly ever).

Most of the ANC disputed pairings are due to the fact to NGO is a new city being serviced and that it is two legs into Asia. I hate to say it but the second leg (NRT-NGO 1:30) isn't bad, the trips actually look pretty easy because they have such long layovers. I've seen some domestic MEM trips that look worse.

On a side note, I have to agree with the major international override pay increase in the next contract. That will definately help ANC and align the numbers.

 

[TonyC]

One stipulation if I may. The senior 727 FO will accrue passover pay once the DC-10 SO is checked out, and won't actually get paid the passover pay until he (the 727 FO) gets checked out in the new seat position. The reason for this is because if the 727 FO decides not to go to training (i.e. another bid comes out before the 727 FO goes to training and he decides to bid to something else), or if he doesn't make it through traingiing, then all the passover pay that he has accrued will vanish and not be paid. As you can see, when he does get paid the passover pay, it can make for a pretty big paycheck!

That's what the contract used to say, and that's what's still posted on the website. Apply the POPA LOA and you'll see some differences. It's no longer paid lumps sum. You might have to pay it back, but you get paid monthly.

 

[TonyC]

On a side note, I have to agree with the major international override pay increase in the next contract.

It would have to increase 17% just to bring it back up to what it was before the contract. For those of you who weren't around then (and for those who were but didn't notice), the International Override rates did not change from before the contract. The dollar figures, that is, did not change. What did change, though, was the way we figured a day. Prior to the contract, we got 7 Credit Hours for a day, and if it was Int'l., we got 7 hours of Int'l. Ovrd. Beginning with "The Agreement" we get 6 Credit Hours for a day. Ostensibly, the hourly rates were adjusted upward about 1/7 th so that 7 of the old hours approximately equalled 6 of the new hours. Then, a measely raise was applied and we got our new pay rates. The Int'l. Override rates, however, remained unchanged. Therefore, we effectively took a 17% CUT in Int'l. Override.

When I asked the head of our Negotiating Team "Why?" he said it wasn't worth negotiating for.




Thank goodness he's not doing that now....

 

[sandman2122]

From Mr. Zog:

Seniority should never be an issue in regards to wether or not to award seat bids.

What?! I hope you meant something different because ANY seat award must be based on seniority, otherwise you can kiss your career goodby as the company would say, furlough out of seniority........

Maybe you meant the company could hire off the street into vacancies in an unfilled seat.....newhires off to ANC, bring your parka!

 

[New FDX Guy]

.....newhires off to ANC, bring your parka!

Sign me up. From the chatter, I feel as if I've hit the PowerBall lotto...

Time in Alaska on a widebody is a small price to pay for that!!

 

[PurpleTail]

From Mr. Zog:


What?! I hope you meant something different because ANY seat award must be based on seniority, otherwise you can kiss your career goodby as the company would say, furlough out of seniority........

In Mr.Zog's defense I believe (I could be wrong) he was refering to a certain amount of secondaries the company would filled on the -11 in ANC due to the relatively junior seniority situation...at least thats how I understood him. Everyone knows that the seniority system must be honored.

 

[klhoard]

Until you become old and bitter like the rest of us. . .
.
.
.
LOL, just kidding guys!! I'm LIVING the dream!!
.
.

 

[Huck]

Let me confide in you guys (sharing circle, everyone).


My wife and I are contemplating moving to PANC. We got small kids, she doesn't work, and I've been commuting for 10 years. We want to try living where I work for once, and MEM just doesn't appeal to us that much.

Anybody here done it? If so, what do you think? for the sake of argument assume I am junior to all of you.....

By the way my seniority % was exactly the same between MEM and ANC on the practice awards.

 

[active_herk]

That's what the contract used to say, and that's what's still posted on the website. Apply the POPA LOA and you'll see some differences. It's no longer paid lumps sum. You might have to pay it back, but you get paid monthly.

Thanks for the clarifiication. You are right, I was looking at the contract. Where is the POPA LOA listed?

 

[active_herk]

Good point Active_Herk, I do keep an eye on disputed pairings but usually only the ones in LA (which is hardly ever).

Most of the ANC disputed pairings are due to the fact to NGO is a new city being serviced and that it is two legs into Asia. I hate to say it but the second leg (NRT-NGO 1:30) isn't bad, the trips actually look pretty easy because they have such long layovers. I've seen some domestic MEM trips that look worse.

I agree that it doesn't look too bad, but I think the intent of the dispute is that we shouldn't have RFOs on multi-leg trips period (unless it is due to a technical stop). By allowing this pairing, we could be telling the company that multi-leg RFO pairings are ok, which I feel was never the intent of an RFO.

Besides that, imagine a scenario where the crew takes off late from ANC, gets stronger than expected headwinds enroute to NRT, has a maintenance problem on the ground in NRT further delaying them, and then takes off to weather at mins at NGO, knowing no one is getting any rest from the top of descent into NRT until landing at NGO. Suddenly that pairing doesn't look as easy.

Just my take on things, it could be wrong.

 

[TonyC]

Let me confide in you guys (sharing circle, everyone).


My wife and I are contemplating moving to PANC. We got small kids, she doesn't work, and I've been commuting for 10 years. We want to try living where I work for once, and MEM just doesn't appeal to us that much.

Anybody here done it? If so, what do you think? for the sake of argument assume I am junior to all of you.....

By the way my seniority % was exactly the same between MEM and ANC on the practice awards.

I woulda moved but health issues in the extended family changed the plan - - I commuted.

It gets dark, and it stays dark. A lot of people can't handle that. Take the wife and visit in the winter - - it'll be money well spent.

The people are great, the flying is great, it's a 3-hour callout.

None of that matters unless your wife is happy. If momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

You might need to plan on a trip or two to the lower 48 every year to visit loved ones.

It's on my list.

 

[TonyC]

Thanks for the clarifiication. You are right, I was looking at the contract. Where is the POPA LOA listed?

I have a copy, but I don't know where it's currently available on the web. It's not on the company site, and the last time I looked it wasn't on ALPA's either. I talked to the folks in Contract Admin and encouraged them to post it, but I haven't seen if they took the advice.

It seems to me that the updated sections should be posted in the appropriate places, but that's just me.

 

[Mr Zog]

Sandman,

What I meant is that Seniority should not be an issue on whether or not the company decides to fill a vacancy awarded on the bid. For example, just because a guy is a new hire and could hold a secondary vacancy on this bid for the MD-11, the company should not take into account the fact that he is junior in deciding whether or not to fill the vacancy. I am not an idiot. Of course, bidding is based on seniority. But it should not be the determining factor on whether or not to fill vacancies on a bid.

 

[Mr Zog]

Herk,

The RFO is not meant to augment mutliple flights in which the total time exceeds 8+00 hours. We are the only people in the industry, that I am aware of, that use RFOs in this manner. When I was in ANC, a similar disputed pairing was ANC-NRT-ICN. I hope we aren't still doing that one.

 

[Mr Zog]

Sorry Herk,

You answered the question. I only read the part shaded in blue. Just reaffirming what you said.