Search

Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines

Under 60 Bid Now

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-11-2008, 06:41 AM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,068
Default

Originally Posted by FDXLAG
I mean it is not like we arrogantly announce "It will go senior" and then pretend we never said any such thing.
In the words of Michael Kelso............BURN!!
Daniel Larusso is offline  
Old 01-12-2008, 09:31 AM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
DLax85's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,199
Default

Originally Posted by Spur
My Guess is the DC-10 Excess bid will only be for the front seaters.

The -10 SOs remaining after bid 08-01 will get to hang around til the end at 48/60 BLG.
A little blue bird wearing a tie and pin-stripes tells me the DC-10 excess bid will be in all seats.

The guys 63-65 will not be offered training but paid passover.
DLax85 is offline  
Old 01-13-2008, 03:31 AM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Toccata's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: DC10 Captain
Posts: 284
Default

Originally Posted by DLax85
A little blue bird wearing a tie and pin-stripes tells me the DC-10 excess bid will be in all seats.

The guys 63-65 will not be offered training but paid passover.
What your bird likely meant to say is that the excess bid will reduce the manning in each seat to the number the department has calculated they will need at the end of that cycle.

The S/O seat being in the first excess bid is not a surety.

0801 provides the capability of bidding out of the back to hold one of 42 domestic widebody captain primary vacancies, 35 domestic narrowbody captain primary vacancies, or 12 domestic narrowbody F/O primary seats. And, of course, HKG and CDG.

The Feb DC10 Bidpack shows 118 S/O's, with 22 as pay-only.

I can guarantee you that their staffing model is not for some number of S/O seats in the neighborhood of 40-50 for 2008. Depending on what happens in 0801, they might even actually - as ridiculous as it sounds - need to have a vacancy bid for the S/O seat in 0802.

It's actually a dice rolling time for some that are not real senior - if an over-60 S/O holds out to get what he wants (excess bid) vs. what he can hold in 0801, he may have to wait until a late 2008/early 2009 excess bid. And, as I read it, without passover pay.

"So.... the question is..... ya feelin' lucky, punk?"
Toccata is offline  
Old 01-13-2008, 03:44 AM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Gunter's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Default

Originally Posted by fecav8r
Why does the 48/60 keep coming up in all these threads? The contract alows the Company to go that that number but does anyone really think we have the crew members necessary to go to that number. I would think if we did agree to reduce the BLG numbers it would go to somewhere near 63/80 rather than the minimum. Just can't support the bid pack on those numbers.
That's only a 30% reduction in flying from min BLG. How many seats are 10% or more overmanned. How many will be 20% or more overmanned after the excess bid and 10% reduction in 727 fleet? How much flying going onto lines line now could be put into open time and get swooped up in no time? 10%?

Hmmm......
Gunter is offline  
Old 01-13-2008, 09:52 AM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 266
Default

Why would the company have an excess bid when we are overmanned in almost every seat. Why not just do vacancy bids and leave the over 60 guys in the back making the same as if they retire.

If I were mgt I would keep 1 DC-10 and overman it to the max extent with over 60 guys. force them to either sit airport standby for their paycheck or drop R-Days and not get paid.

As soon as they figure out that they won't be upgrading anytime soon I think that a lot of them would go ahead and retire, helping to solve our overmanning issue
fdxmd11fo is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 06:56 AM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
bustinmins's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: A Big One
Posts: 283
Default

Originally Posted by fdxmd11fo
Why would the company have an excess bid when we are overmanned in almost every seat. Why not just do vacancy bids and leave the over 60 guys in the back making the same as if they retire.

If I were mgt I would keep 1 DC-10 and overman it to the max extent with over 60 guys. force them to either sit airport standby for their paycheck or drop R-Days and not get paid.

As soon as they figure out that they won't be upgrading anytime soon I think that a lot of them would go ahead and retire, helping to solve our overmanning issue
This sounds like the new domestic solve....Mesa Style

Back to the rant
bustinmins is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 05:52 PM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
fecav8r's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Posts: 675
Default

Originally Posted by Gunter
That's only a 30% reduction in flying from min BLG. How many seats are 10% or more overmanned. How many will be 20% or more overmanned after the excess bid and 10% reduction in 727 fleet? How much flying going onto lines line now could be put into open time and get swooped up in no time? 10%?

Hmmm......
Just talked to a bud of mine who was bragging that he had bid his line up to 130+ hours for Jan. Another thread on here had a guy say he was at about 130 as well. Now, before I would even consider going below the min BLG we have now I would demand that the carryover be controlled and we put a Max BLG in effect as well as a min.
fecav8r is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 06:01 PM
  #28  
Gets Weekends Off
 
jagplt's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: 777 Multi-tasker
Posts: 712
Default

guess we need a carryover thread...
jagplt is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
R1200RT
Cargo
36
01-09-2008 06:26 AM
Falconjet
Cargo
6
11-13-2007 07:34 AM
pilot141
Cargo
74
09-25-2007 02:59 PM
HerkDriver
Cargo
5
09-18-2007 01:56 PM
CAL EWR
Major
35
08-05-2007 07:31 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices