FDX FEB VTO's
01-21-2009, 11:01 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: B757 Capt
Posts: 177
Let's not forget the CBA says a maximum of 15/19 days.
Nothing says the number of days on reserve can't be reduced.
However, when asked in a recent RGS, the SCP stated the number of R days will not be reduced.
Additionally, the SCP said the issue of work days for the flex instructors is being looked at and expected some changes in that area.
01-21-2009, 11:15 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Posts: 675
Let's not forget the CBA says a maximum of 15/19 days.
Nothing says the number of days on reserve can't be reduced.
However, when asked in a recent RGS, the SCP stated the number of R days will not be reduced.
Additionally, the SCP said the issue of work days for the flex instructors is being looked at and expected some changes in that area.
Nothing says the number of days on reserve can't be reduced.
However, when asked in a recent RGS, the SCP stated the number of R days will not be reduced.
Additionally, the SCP said the issue of work days for the flex instructors is being looked at and expected some changes in that area.
01-21-2009, 12:07 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,989
Shack.
Lately, the R-day value has hovered around 4:30 just because of the math (dividing RLG by # of R-days).
It has floated a few minutes up or down depending on the actual RLG value published from month to month. Lately it's been 68/85 which results in 4:32 (4 week) and 4:28 (5 week). I remember times on the 727 a few years ago when RLG was higher and resulted in R day values around 4:40.
Unfortunately there's no contractual reason to change this math just because the resulting R-day value is lower by roughly :30 instead of the few minute fluctuations that have been normal up to now.
As a career reservist so far (not by choice), I'd love to see this grievance go in our favor. However, I can't see it happening. It's too clearly delineated. RLG determination is simple math - no grey. Max R days per bid period are spelled out - no grey. Given the historical "interpretations" and cherry picking by the company on the grey areas of the contract, there's no way they'd give up a chance to have reserves available for the same number of days @ less $$ per day. It would be a great show of good will but I won't hold my breath on that any time soon.
The only possible way this R-day value issue could go our way would be as a by-product of the grievance regarding the legitimacy of implementation of lower BLGs in the first place.
JMO.
01-21-2009, 12:10 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: B757 Capt
Posts: 177
Don't think it was contractual, but in a letter of agreement in the training dept, but I was under the understanding that the number of days worked as a flex was a direct correlation to the number of rdays worked. How can you ethically reduce the number of days a flex works and maintain the number of days a reserve "works." Not that I expect any different....
Ethically, I don't see how you can reduce flex days without reducing the R-days either. IMO, management will do what they think is necessary to operate the airline. Possibly, noise from the flex house caused someone to reassess the situation and look for possible solutions, I don't know.
CBA para 25.D.3 defines reserve line construction and establishes the max R-days at 15/19.
3. Reserve Line Construction
a. A reserve line consists entirely of R-days and days off.
b. In a 4-week bid period, a reserve line shall contain a
maximum of 15 R-days. In a 5-week bid period, a reserve
line shall contain a maximum of 19 R-days.
However, if we are truly in an overmanned situation, would reducing R-days add to the overmanned numbers? I differ to the number crunchers on this one.
It wasn't soon after these questions were asked and quickly answered that the SCP had to leave the Q/A.
At the start of his portion, the SCP did state his time was limited and the first questions out of the box concerned the 777 pay rate and it's bid.
01-21-2009, 12:14 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Could somebody refer me to the CBA section that allows there to be a VTO credit hour cap? The only allowance I can find is, the secondary lines can be built with trips and R days - or just R days if no trips are available. Besides that, it has to meet all the other parameters of regular lines, including the 13 credit hour split between low and high line. If the low regular line was built to 61 credit hours - why isn't the cap 74?
I asked in OCT '08 when I got gooned on a VTO, and no cap was published, and the union had, and has no interest in grieving it. The VTO CH CAP FCIF is being published because of that, but . . . I still think establishing a cap is illegal. Now - establishing a 'target' BLG is appropriate, so there's a credit hour average, but that's NOT a cap.
I asked in OCT '08 when I got gooned on a VTO, and no cap was published, and the union had, and has no interest in grieving it. The VTO CH CAP FCIF is being published because of that, but . . . I still think establishing a cap is illegal. Now - establishing a 'target' BLG is appropriate, so there's a credit hour average, but that's NOT a cap.
You are at their whim on actual credit. The reason is your VTO "requests" are just that. The company is not required to assign them to you if they are available when they get to your line.
In fact, they could build all the VTOs at the low end of the 13 split if they desired. No average is required to be maintained. If people sell back vacation instead of using it or those scheduled for training have it canceled, it would be very bad for the VTO folks.
So it's not that the CBA allows a CAP. It's that the CBA does not prohibit a CAP.
Last edited by Gunter; 01-21-2009 at 12:37 PM.
01-21-2009, 12:41 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: B757 Capt
Posts: 177
Shack.
Lately, the R-day value has hovered around 4:30 just because of the math (dividing RLG by # of R-days).
It has floated a few minutes up or down depending on the actual RLG value published from month to month. Lately it's been 68/85 which results in 4:32 (4 week) and 4:28 (5 week). I remember times on the 727 a few years ago when RLG was higher and resulted in R day values around 4:40.
Unfortunately there's no contractual reason to change this math just because the resulting R-day value is lower by roughly :30 instead of the few minute fluctuations that have been normal up to now.
As a career reservist so far (not by choice), I'd love to see this grievance go in our favor. However, I can't see it happening. It's too clearly delineated. RLG determination is simple math - no grey. Max R days per bid period are spelled out - no grey. Given the historical "interpretations" and cherry picking by the company on the grey areas of the contract, there's no way they'd give up a chance to have reserves available for the same number of days @ less $$ per day. It would be a great show of good will but I won't hold my breath on that any time soon.
The only possible way this R-day value issue could go our way would be as a by-product of the grievance regarding the legitimacy of implementation of lower BLGs in the first place.
JMO.
AD, you want more money per R-day? Have R lines with less R-days.
The CBA defines the maximum number of R-days in a bid period, not the minimum. Just because it says maximum, doesn't mean that is THE number, it means no more than. The minimum number of R-days is not defined and could, theoretically, be 0.
The CBA goes on to define how the pay per R-day is calculated based on average BLG (96% of). If the average BLG is a constant number in this equation then to increase pay per R-day, reduce the number of R-days worked in a bid period.
4.C. Reserve Line Guarantee (RLG) and R-Day Value
A pilot who is awarded a reserve line shall have an RLG equal to
the value of an R-day multiplied by the number of R-days scheduled
on a reserve line for the bid period package (i.e., up to a maximum
of 15 or 19 days). The value of an R-day shall be determined by
dividing 96% of the average BLG for regular lines published in the
bid period package by the number of R-days scheduled on a reserve
line for the bid period package and then rounding that amount to the
nearest minute. Prior to any adjustments, however, an RLG shall
not be less than the minimum bid period guarantee as provided in
Section 4.A.1. (above).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
