PastV1

Didn't that one go thru the entire SIG process? Looks to me like they did their job.

From Aug SIG notes.....


ANC-NRT-NGO - After several months of disputing this sequence, we have a decision regarding this flying in accordance with CBA Section 25.BB.G. The Vice President of Flight Operations made a determination “to support the current pairing design” and we can, therefore, no longer dispute it. We want to emphasize this resolution applies only to this sequence in the daytime configuration. It is not a blanket approval to fly multi-leg RFO sequences. As such, we will continue to monitor new pairing designs utilizing an RFO on more than one flight leg and make dispute assessments based on each new pairing construct.

MaxKts

Yes the SIG and the ANC pilots did their job. The problem was they had NO support from the MEC. The MEC as usual decided there were bigger fish to fry and did not help at all when the pairing went to review by PC. Just another example of the MEC having their own agenda and not supporting the crew force.

AerisArmis

I've always had the feeling that PC always approved DPs and cared little what the ALPA SIG thought. Please support your assertion that they "did not help at all when the pairing went to review by PC".

MD Abuser

Huh???? What was the MEC supposed to do when it went to PC? I read the part of the contract (25.BB.G) and I don't see any reference to the MEC. Is my contract missing a page that yours has?

MD Abuser

How did our union leadership torpedo us and the rest of the crewforce? Seems to me that when we followed the contract, the SIG carried it to PC. He then decided it wasn't disputable. Who torpedoed whom again?

MaydayMark

I'm one of those guys that actually reads the contract before I vote on it. When I initially read the resolution to the DP process in the TA I thought to myself, "Self ... I wonder what the VP of Flight Ops will decide in these situations?" So, I have to admit that I wasn't very surprised when PC decided against the SIG! My question is ... what was the negotiating committee thinking when they allowed that mealy mouthed language in the TA to begin with? Did anyone really ever think the outcome would be different?

Now ... all of the above said, I momentarily thought that maybe, just maybe PC would decide safety was important; especially with our safety record but obviously that didn't happen

Mark

MaxKts

Reread the disputed pairing section and tell me which part is missing. The one you referenced (25.BB.G) specifically talks about the MEC chairman and stating unresolved concerns/problems. Now, if the letter going to PC doesn't contain any real concerns (it's no worse than/not as bad as we are already flying) what do you think PC's decision is going to be?

The SIG had no support on this dispute except from the guys in ANC who refused to fly it voluntarily!

And if you are going to say there is a big difference between "The MEC" and "MEC Chairman" then why are we being told that the MEC is what influences DW's decision and he is not a rogue on his own?

Additionally, Section 25.BB.F also involves the MEC Chairman. So no matter which section was used to resolve the dispute, the same person was involved!

None of this should be considered an attack on DW. I am simply saying the MEC did not support the SIG on this one.

FR8Hauler

Ditto. That is exactly what happened. So now our beat down SIG that gets no support from our MEC is toothless. Thanks again DW and gang.

FR8Hauler

If you read the other comments it would answer your question. OUR MEC DECIDED NOT TO SUPPORT IT BEFORE IT WENT TO PC.

FR8Hauler

Mayday, as it was explained to me there are no unsafe DP's otherwise reserves would not be allowed to fly them. You are exactly right the whole process is BS.