MaydayMark

SIBA is an expensive but reasonable fix to this problem. I wonder if PC will resort to SIBA in order to "save face"?

FDXLAG

Please read the post before mine and you will come to understand that STV can't be used willie-nillie (as grandpa LAG would say):
Very limited application if you are to trust the company and the MEC (said with a straight face). But in the future it can be anything as long as DW says AOK.

Daniel Larusso

LAG,

I understand your and AFW's point, but I think it comes down to the language that we voted in and the associated intent letters to the MEC. The rest of the stuff seems like fluff to me? What would we grieve in this situation? The obvious answer seems like the idea that pilots cannot be permanently inversed into an FDA, but I don't think that would work. STV is not a permanent assignment, has inversing provisions, and as long as the company continues to frequently post permanent vacancies and discontinues the use of STV after 2 years from base start what leg do we have to stand on? In fact given that the grievance probably would look like a loser on it's face and our current manning situation, it wouldn't surprise me if any such grievance was held in abeyance and/or rolled into some future LOA on manning issues.

We all sat here a year ago on this board and hashed this out during LOA 1, coming to a consensus that it was a possibility then, so why are we surprised that it's a possibility now especially considering the change in the economy since then? While this will certainly get emotional if it goes down, to me it has zip to do with trusting the MEC or the company, nor DW's extended power under LOA 2. It has everything to do with the 1st LOA we voted in and the language contained within it. For those who didn't care or actually read what was in front of them before voting yes, too bad so sad. It was all right in front of them, so any fingers should be pointed inward on this one imo as they enjoy the 'limited' application for remainder of the 2 year STV availability period. And none of it will require the use of DW's expanded powers under LOA 2.

AFW_MD11

for the record - I trust both about as far as I could throw either of them at this point....

having said that.....

even though the Q&A isn't THE legal document - it IS official communication from the company to the pilots (union) as to their positon on the subject - and their intent on how to use it (STV)

the union takes a lot of grief from us because they don't put enough in writing.....why do you think that is? if it isn't in writing, then no one can hold them to it in the future.

same for the company - they don't just pull answers to these officially published Q&A's out of their posterior orifices. you can bet that any written answers to these Q&A's have been filtered over and over again by the company lawyers.

so, I would trust them to stick to how they answered this particular question BEFORE I would suspect that they would do just the opposite and start non-vol STV-ing guys over to HKG (if they can't fill the vacancies with this bid) - or even using the voluntary STV vs. SIBA option before they fill the vacancies with "new hires" or "cancel the FDA"

sets a precedent for lots of ramifications longer-term for the company if they did that (went back on their word/written intent) - weakens their negotiating position and/or their argument before an arbitrator if it ended up in a grievance, etc...

DLax85

And so I ask again on APC ---- Given that we already have pilots who were not in Subic but bid HKG, have completed training in the Bus, moved to HKG, and are now flying trips from HKG (...even if they are DHs to Subic) --- is the HKG domicile open for the Bus?

Has the 24 month STV clock started ticking?

I think this is a very simple question that should be public knowledge.

Any MEC, mgt lurkers care to chime in with their interpretation?

Thanks!

FDXLAG

Since the company has (basically) stated that STV can't be used to fill vacancies caused by a POS LOA and subsequent lack of volunteers; darn right I expect the union to grieve non vol STVs to fill vacancies. That is their job. I would show up with a pitch fork (proverbial) to explain my "trust" issues to Sleepy if DW negotiates any changes to this. If they can't fill the LOA with the bid process they should be forced to use Siba. Maybe next time they come to the bargaining table they will understand they just don't have to sell/buy the leadership they have to make the agreement livable for the peons.

Daniel Larusso

I would say it has.

I would expect that it would be used if any grievance actually got to the point of being in front of an arbitrator as it is the only thing ALPA would have to support their side of the grievance. Nothing in LOA 1, 2 or the official intent letter to the union on STV would be of help afaik.

True, which is why it would be entered as evidence in any grievance as I was saying above. Although we do have to consider the fact that the preamble to the LOA Info link on the website says the info contained comes from various sources which would make it harder to pinpoint who said what, although there are likely older communications that are clearer as to who made the statements.

At this point it's not about trust, it's about what we voted in and the options it gives the company. They may(not shall) hire, they may use STV's to help open the base for up to 2 years, they can negotiate a better FDA deal to entice people, or they can go the controversial furlough/recall into FDA route. At this point which one do you think they are leaning towards? They've had all the time in the world to hire, cancel the FDA or change to SIBA and they don't seem interested in doing so over 21 FO positions. LOA 2 vis a vis LOA 1 speaks for itself on their interest in additional negotiations at this point. I think furlough/recall would have far greater ramifications for the company than going back on their word and using STV's for the remainder of the 2 year period while continuing to post permanent vacancy bids for the positions before eventually hiring when things improve with the economy. Such a move would have bad morale effects, likely help to galvanize the middle of the road sheep on being unionists, and result in a grievance that the company would be far more likely to lose than an STV one.

I voted No on both deals, and am on your side and I expect there to be grievances if the company goes the STV route. That said, my comments were my thoughts on the prospects for success on any such grievance, what the MEC may do and why? The company will argue that they aren't filling permanent vacancies as they are continuing to post the FO bid and that they are only filling special temporary vacancies while they man up the base over it's first 2 years as outlined in the LOA. While certainly not so to us, legally our evidence that the company should do otherwise is weak imo.

If ALPA's lawyers come to the same conclusion, then I would expect the grievance to be held in abeyance while they try to come up with other solutions or let time make it effectively a non-issue. It is their job to file grievances, but they have the right to settle/handle them in any manner they chose. I'm saying I like or agree with it, but I've seen it before and the odds of ALPA pushing a grievance that they feel is a dog are slim because of downside risk and cost.

We assume the company would simply come into any grievance hearing with the position that they are simply using the STV portion of the LOA correctly, and they may. However, in an effort to put pressure on ALPA to leave it alone, they may take a more draconian position that includes challenging the intent of the involuntary inverse into FDA language. Rightly or wrongly, arbitrators have very wide latitude in what they do in their rulings and as such, neither side likes to take grievances that they feel are weak for some reason to the table, preferring to negotiate instead. It's why we got the recent bid cancellation settlement.

In the end, I say grieve away if this goes down, it's every pilots right. I'm just handicapping what may happen if it comes down to STV. Most of us on here knew that we had shot ourselves in the foot leverage wise with the first LOA vote, now it's looks like it may be beginning to come to fruition although I doubt either side is excited about the prospect. Look at the bright side though, they'll sell it as a short term manning solution that won't require them to excess the widebodies!!

Albief15

If they got 30 out of 40 guys I'll bet they could throw out AVA, volunteer, and draft and get the flying done. The guys who move to HKG to make some extra money would be happy, and although there is still some downside risk to the company a few management/training guys over there during peak might be enough to get the job done.

Trying to add an MD-10/11 base there down the road, however, will likely be just a repeat of these problems if enhancements are not added.

KnightFlyer

Capt OR spoke at the training bldg this week. I paraphrase:

They want to fill HKG with the bids. They won't hire to fill it. Last option he would consider is voluntary STV; doesn't want to do involuntary STV.

Oct bid planned for 777. Hopes to have pay rates resolved before it comes out, but believes there will be some that will bid it regardless of rate.

A-300 domicile to Paris possibly in the near future. MD to HKG later possibly.

AFW_MD11

I've said all along that voluntary STV will be snatched up like a MEM disputed pairing in open time....

I've even said I would personally volunteer for a 1-month STV (if I were a Bus guy) so that one more pilot wouldn't have to be non-vol'd

BUT......

Given that the company has formally stated their intent to either HIRE or CANCEL the FDA before STVing (of any kind - voluntary or not).......if they do decide to use STV (vol or not), we should grieve, grieve, grieve it!!!

The way I see it - it's the company's problem that they can't fill HKG due to the low-ball LOA......not the pilot group's fault that no one can afford to bid it. We met them halfway and accepted their low-ball offer....now they've made their bed....

P.S. I also said all along that when (if) the LOA 1 passed, no one should bid HKG or CDG and force the company to come back with more.

I guess we're about to see......