DLax85

Albie...once again, thanks for the detailed post....and all your hardwork despite the numerous headwinds you face daily,

I for one think the comm has really improved and I greatly appreciate it.

While you addressed many topics in your post, your closing struck a chord with me.

"What we can do is stay involved, follow up, and make sure the issue is addressed and made aware to the rest of the MEC. No way 12 sets of eyes can see every problem, and 12 folks certainly don't have all the good ideas, so your participation helps on many different levels."

I think you'll agree that APC has helped identify potential problem areas, generated possible ideas and solutions, and, at times, generated fruitful discussions that haven't (can't) occur as free-flowingly in other venues --- and thus it too serves an important function.

I really appreciate you, and others, logging in and looking at what is being discussed ---- I believe it generates questions and ideas which are then (or can be) addressed in other forums....even if those answers take a bit of time.

I am a little confused on why the question posted would be so difficult for "us" (collectively) to answer/agree upon (...especially, if there are a group of folks in leadership positions stating that STV is now irrelevant, and STV won't/can't be used).

Thanks again!! ---- hopefully an official Union response to this question will find it's way into one of the communication forums you listed.

A'o Aloha!

Gunter

DLax,

You only have to look at how management interprets parts of the contract to get a good idea of possible STV usage. Does the LOA say they can't use it due to undermanning? If they are undermanned the claim will be, "It's only temporary."

Accepted fares are FUBAR because the contract does not specify how the company is required to calculate them. It only specifies that an accepted fare will be set. Nothing is being done to fix that problem.

Daniel Larusso

DLax,

Gunter seems to be on the right track. If you were to take the general consensus around here, then STV pretty much cannot be used for anything. However it's in the contract and common sense will tell you that's not true. It's fairly easy to see that if the company were to attempt to use STV their argument would be that the vacancies are temporary since they are continuing to post the permanent vacancy bid for fully manning the base. They would also likely argue that since not enough of the FO's have entered training yet in time to get them in position for the base's opening, that STV is warranted. Question is are their arguments valid(legally, not our opinions) and if not would they be grieved? While I did NOT get the impression that he was linking the two in any way, shape, or form, Albie's comments about there being a lot of irons in the fire right now are noteworthy. Even if there is a valid grievance over any STV issue, imo there is a chance that it could get rolled up into a comprehensive LOA covereing some of the larger outstanding issues. While I'm sure it will spark some commentary here, I cannot see 15-20 STV's over the next 1.5 years or so holding up any deal that covers larger issues if it comes to that-larger groups of pilots have been sacrificed for less across the industry.

DLax85

Gents -

We are in violent agreement that STV is open to many, many interpretations on how, when it can be used...AND that if it isn't a hip-pocket mechanism the company wants the potential to use, then why was it included in LOA I ---- and similary, not removed in LOA II.

The very simple question I am asking is when did/does the 24 month STV clock start ticking for HKG A300 domicile?

I believe one could easily argue it already has......but has it?

Once that 24-month clock times out, the company loses it's power to invoke STV for that acft at that domicile.

Thus, as we move forward with future FDAs and future FDA negogiations, I think it's important for all players to understand how much time is on the clock.

Gunter

What does the union say? They should be able to answer the question.

kronan

They have, posted 1st of August

https://crewroom.alpa.org/FDX/Deskto...cumentID=43509

Whether the company will agree/abide with that interpretation with the shortage of HKG FOs is TBD.

BOYCAPTAIN

what does the union say?..nothing!!!!!...how about getting DW to get the boys back to the table!

Gunter

Where in that document does it say when the domicile officially opened?

kronan

The big question is whether STVs can be used as a supplement for the unfilled FO slots at HKG. The NC says that STVs can not be used to staff the domicile and make up for the 13 (projected) unfilled slots.

If it comes down to a grievance over it, then I'd say the domicile opened when the bidpack was published. And, I think a neutral arbitrator would agree with that opinion. Even if the company argued for a later date, they could legitimately argue for a month or two slide....afterall, we have guys living in HKG right now getting the rental assistance. So, how can the company argue that the domicile isn't really open right now?

DLax85

I agree --- just like to see the Union and/or Mgt put this out publicly, via some form of official communication (...preferably in written form).