FDX--- Excess Practice #2 No Good -- ReDo
03-15-2009, 09:53 AM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Great White North
Posts: 391
Ok...the bid closes on Monday as scheduled. Everyone is in senority order and the POP issues are resolved (as we assume that is one of the goals the company wants)...but there is way too much training and lots of move costs, so the company won't or doesn't want to execute the bid (training letter).
What if the next bid is a vacancy instead of an excess? They put all the seats back to the numbers they were before 09-02. I would think folks would gravate to their previous seats and the bid would still keep "senority order" intact. Lot less training, many less moves...POP issues gone. Many of the company's goals are achieved with minimum impact. Basically, back to square one (just like a cancelled bid) but a few steps to correct company issues.
Just thinking out loud again...
What if the next bid is a vacancy instead of an excess? They put all the seats back to the numbers they were before 09-02. I would think folks would gravate to their previous seats and the bid would still keep "senority order" intact. Lot less training, many less moves...POP issues gone. Many of the company's goals are achieved with minimum impact. Basically, back to square one (just like a cancelled bid) but a few steps to correct company issues.
Just thinking out loud again...
Last edited by Cujo; 03-15-2009 at 01:41 PM. Reason: corrected
03-15-2009, 10:35 AM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,409
Ok...the bid closes on Monday as scheduled. Everyone is in senority order and the POP issues are resolved (as we assume that is one of the goals the company wants)...but there is way too much training and lots of move costs, so the company won't or doesn't want to execute the bid (training letter).
What if the next bid is a vacancy instead of an excess? They put all the seats back to the numbers they were before 09-02. I would think folks would gravate to their previous seats and the bid would still keep "senority order" in tack. Lot less training, many less moves...POP issues gone. Many of the company's goals are achieved with minimum impact. Basically, back to square one (just like a cancelled bid) but a few steps to correct company issues.
Just thinking out loud again...
What if the next bid is a vacancy instead of an excess? They put all the seats back to the numbers they were before 09-02. I would think folks would gravate to their previous seats and the bid would still keep "senority order" in tack. Lot less training, many less moves...POP issues gone. Many of the company's goals are achieved with minimum impact. Basically, back to square one (just like a cancelled bid) but a few steps to correct company issues.
Just thinking out loud again...
03-15-2009, 02:21 PM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Great White North
Posts: 391
[quote=FR8Hauler;578658]...But then they are back to square one, with nobody except the most junior guys in the company bidding to go to ANC...quote]
I don't think the company really cares how junior the base is...the point being, POP is resolved and the senority list is in order...bid want you want to fly. The list would take care of itself since there is no longer a huge wad of 69 nuggets jumping over the bottom 250
Maybe convervative on #'s that live down south...however, I don't think that nearly that many want to return to a domestic domicile. I understand it was rhetorical, but as a gainfully employed nugget, living in domicile (as many of my nuggets friends) I'm just a bit upset that we were hired to fill a void when the company needed it most...and ever since then, we've had a bullseye on our forehead. Can the company target a specific "class" of pilots?...i.e. there was an excess of 56 ANC F/O's. If you take away the 5 "pay only" F/O's, that's the exact # of nuggets in ANC.
Yes...MEM, HKG, Furlough, a house, and a move are all heavy decisions on my mind...but no more so than the bottom 300 or so and everyone else who were involuntarily excessed from their seat.
I couldn't agree more...a perfect day in ANC and Kincaid park was fantastic
I don't think the company really cares how junior the base is...the point being, POP is resolved and the senority list is in order...bid want you want to fly. The list would take care of itself since there is no longer a huge wad of 69 nuggets jumping over the bottom 250
<abridged version> ... I think I'm being conservative to estimate that 80% of the nuggets live down south and want to return to a domestic domicile. I'd like to hear from a gainfully employed nugget that is faced with NB F/O pay in MEM vs. ANC WB F/O pay vs. furlough...
Yes...MEM, HKG, Furlough, a house, and a move are all heavy decisions on my mind...but no more so than the bottom 300 or so and everyone else who were involuntarily excessed from their seat.
I couldn't agree more...a perfect day in ANC and Kincaid park was fantastic
03-15-2009, 04:12 PM
#65
New Hire
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 5
Is PERCENTAGE accounted for when relieving
CBA 24.A.4.b. A pilot may update his standing bid at any time. The standing bid format shall: 1) Contain a separate and optional preference listing for the temporary vacancies and/or FDA vacancies, if any, for which he wishes to bid;
2) Provide a method for percentage bidding on permanent vacancies; and 3) Provide a method to accept an award only if that award would qualify as a bid to relieve an excess.
I heard a rumor that PERCENTAGE is only accounted for in a VACANCY; not when bidding to relieve. Is that true? The only contract language I can find is pasted above.
Example: An LAX11F bids LAX11F at 80% and MEM11F at 100%. After the bid, he falls in at 90% in LAX. Common sense says he will relieve the excess and go to MEM. But I believe there is a chance he will remain in LAX due to the contract language above stating PERCENTAGE bidding is only taken into account for permanent vacancies!??
2) Provide a method for percentage bidding on permanent vacancies; and 3) Provide a method to accept an award only if that award would qualify as a bid to relieve an excess.
I heard a rumor that PERCENTAGE is only accounted for in a VACANCY; not when bidding to relieve. Is that true? The only contract language I can find is pasted above.
Example: An LAX11F bids LAX11F at 80% and MEM11F at 100%. After the bid, he falls in at 90% in LAX. Common sense says he will relieve the excess and go to MEM. But I believe there is a chance he will remain in LAX due to the contract language above stating PERCENTAGE bidding is only taken into account for permanent vacancies!??
03-15-2009, 04:52 PM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: Who knows...waiting for a bid
Posts: 379
I think that what you are going to find is that those of us that have experienced the wide body pay are not willing to give up the teet so easily
I think guys built their lives around it, and now are stuck in that mode, and not only want, but need the widebody teet. I see the $$ grab mode in full effect, along with the, this may be my last chance to upgrade until 2012.
Good luck to all, and I will see you in Memphis for training.
I think guys built their lives around it, and now are stuck in that mode, and not only want, but need the widebody teet. I see the $$ grab mode in full effect, along with the, this may be my last chance to upgrade until 2012.
Good luck to all, and I will see you in Memphis for training.
03-15-2009, 04:53 PM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 355
In short, the sole reason for recent bedlam bids is to align the pilot group to proper seniority. A vacancy bid makes sense following the excess. Albie? Has the Union thought of this? If so, there isn't a whole lot to do but watch dominos fall. This excess bid scenario is akin to trying to stack marbles.
As a reply to a follow-on post; there was a reference "...Why excess out of ANC when it is the most efficient base out there..." and "...they are back to square one, with nobody except the most junior guys in the company bidding to go to ANC..." I have serious doubts, FR8, that any vacancy bid will go junior again to ANC especially with the BLG advantage the domicile has, and with Int'l override figured into the mix, and with move packages, and with potential lower 48 house buy-up thrown in. I think I'm being conservative to estimate that 80% of the nuggets live down south and want to return to a domestic domicile. I'd like to hear from a gainfully employed nugget that is faced with NB F/O pay in MEM vs. ANC WB F/O pay vs. furlough. Yes, that's one of those rhetoricals. So now may come a vacancy bid that has bona fide takers to live in domicile (best of both worlds).
Cliffy-
The only reason to realign seniority is to be in a position to furlough. Positions aligned to seniority INCREASE crew costs. An anecdotal example- a junior ANC MD Capt at the year 11 earns less than a 18+ year WB captain. The nuggets at year 3 pay earn $9/hr less than their 6 year pay replacements.
At the conclusion of a realignment- all that's been done is rearranging the furniture in a more expensive fashion. A targeted excess- too many WB pilots for the given schedule demand makes sense on the surface. NB pay is less than WB. The non-linear fashion of a large excess brings more variables into play than a simple linear hourly pay based decision. The nuggets in ANC drive down the base operating crew cost- excessing them makes sense if the sked doesn't require them, but to replace them with higher cost pilots does not make biz sense. (of course neither did the cancellation & rebid of 8-01 after the law change and the 8-02 excess of very senior 727SO's (low cost)to the WB CAP/FO).
I am a nugget, and commute with Hap & Jack. Don't know the percentage of ANC nuggets that commute, but I do NOT believe that 80% of us want to go back to MEM in the 727. (Maybe MD or Bus).
Pesonally- I'd prefer to stay on the MD vs 72. Even dealing with the commute (which has gotten significantly more challenging over the past 6 months). My feeling has a little to do with pay, but more to do with the qol on the WB vs perceived QOL on the NB hub turns. I've been furloughed before, and have worked the 72 SO job 10 years ago -UAL- (so much for career progression). The vast majority of the nuggets have experienced both.
The fact of the matter is that we will have no choice of staying in ANC on the MD or going to the NB in MEM. The only choice (until the next excess) is the 75 or the 72 f/o s/o. As I mentioned the vast majority of the nuggets are furloughees from UAL NWA AA ... most avoided the 72 s/o either for pay or the perceived/experienced before slave ship qol/working conditions.
As far as your query-"NB F/O pay in MEM vs. ANC WB F/O pay vs. furlough" It's not always about the pay. Majority of nuggets are in their 40's+, with kids going thru college etc, we've been thru the furlough before. Again out of our control- some guys may consider a LOA vs NB. If longevity accrued it would be an easy decision for me- (NBvsLOA).
It'd be nice if ALPA could negotiate part of the global settlement some LOA enhancements.
As a reply to a follow-on post; there was a reference "...Why excess out of ANC when it is the most efficient base out there..." and "...they are back to square one, with nobody except the most junior guys in the company bidding to go to ANC..." I have serious doubts, FR8, that any vacancy bid will go junior again to ANC especially with the BLG advantage the domicile has, and with Int'l override figured into the mix, and with move packages, and with potential lower 48 house buy-up thrown in. I think I'm being conservative to estimate that 80% of the nuggets live down south and want to return to a domestic domicile. I'd like to hear from a gainfully employed nugget that is faced with NB F/O pay in MEM vs. ANC WB F/O pay vs. furlough. Yes, that's one of those rhetoricals. So now may come a vacancy bid that has bona fide takers to live in domicile (best of both worlds).
Cliffy-
The only reason to realign seniority is to be in a position to furlough. Positions aligned to seniority INCREASE crew costs. An anecdotal example- a junior ANC MD Capt at the year 11 earns less than a 18+ year WB captain. The nuggets at year 3 pay earn $9/hr less than their 6 year pay replacements.
At the conclusion of a realignment- all that's been done is rearranging the furniture in a more expensive fashion. A targeted excess- too many WB pilots for the given schedule demand makes sense on the surface. NB pay is less than WB. The non-linear fashion of a large excess brings more variables into play than a simple linear hourly pay based decision. The nuggets in ANC drive down the base operating crew cost- excessing them makes sense if the sked doesn't require them, but to replace them with higher cost pilots does not make biz sense. (of course neither did the cancellation & rebid of 8-01 after the law change and the 8-02 excess of very senior 727SO's (low cost)to the WB CAP/FO).
I am a nugget, and commute with Hap & Jack. Don't know the percentage of ANC nuggets that commute, but I do NOT believe that 80% of us want to go back to MEM in the 727. (Maybe MD or Bus).
Pesonally- I'd prefer to stay on the MD vs 72. Even dealing with the commute (which has gotten significantly more challenging over the past 6 months). My feeling has a little to do with pay, but more to do with the qol on the WB vs perceived QOL on the NB hub turns. I've been furloughed before, and have worked the 72 SO job 10 years ago -UAL- (so much for career progression). The vast majority of the nuggets have experienced both.
The fact of the matter is that we will have no choice of staying in ANC on the MD or going to the NB in MEM. The only choice (until the next excess) is the 75 or the 72 f/o s/o. As I mentioned the vast majority of the nuggets are furloughees from UAL NWA AA ... most avoided the 72 s/o either for pay or the perceived/experienced before slave ship qol/working conditions.
As far as your query-"NB F/O pay in MEM vs. ANC WB F/O pay vs. furlough" It's not always about the pay. Majority of nuggets are in their 40's+, with kids going thru college etc, we've been thru the furlough before. Again out of our control- some guys may consider a LOA vs NB. If longevity accrued it would be an easy decision for me- (NBvsLOA).
It'd be nice if ALPA could negotiate part of the global settlement some LOA enhancements.
03-15-2009, 05:41 PM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 503
Things that make you go Hmmm
Just wondering if the companies emphasis on how you resigned from your company or if you really did resign from you company has anything to do with potential furloughs? If you were a AA guy and have not been recalled or bypassed the recall after you started with FDX it would seem the option to return to AA or UAL or where ever might be looking pretty good. Most CPs at other major carriers seem to bottom drawer the resignation letter knowing thing are ever changing and a guy seeking a paycheck might really want to return later on. Just pondering if the company just realized the same thing. Or maybe someone already returned.
03-15-2009, 05:55 PM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,433
CBA 24.A.4.b. A pilot may update his standing bid at any time. The standing bid format shall: 1) Contain a separate and optional preference listing for the temporary vacancies and/or FDA vacancies, if any, for which he wishes to bid;
2) Provide a method for percentage bidding on permanent vacancies; and 3) Provide a method to accept an award only if that award would qualify as a bid to relieve an excess.
I heard a rumor that PERCENTAGE is only accounted for in a VACANCY; not when bidding to relieve. Is that true? The only contract language I can find is pasted above.
Example: An LAX11F bids LAX11F at 80% and MEM11F at 100%. After the bid, he falls in at 90% in LAX. Common sense says he will relieve the excess and go to MEM. But I believe there is a chance he will remain in LAX due to the contract language above stating PERCENTAGE bidding is only taken into account for permanent vacancies!??
2) Provide a method for percentage bidding on permanent vacancies; and 3) Provide a method to accept an award only if that award would qualify as a bid to relieve an excess.
I heard a rumor that PERCENTAGE is only accounted for in a VACANCY; not when bidding to relieve. Is that true? The only contract language I can find is pasted above.
Example: An LAX11F bids LAX11F at 80% and MEM11F at 100%. After the bid, he falls in at 90% in LAX. Common sense says he will relieve the excess and go to MEM. But I believe there is a chance he will remain in LAX due to the contract language above stating PERCENTAGE bidding is only taken into account for permanent vacancies!??
Your example really isn't a bid to relieve. If he bid 11FM 80% ahead of his current seat 11FL 100% but falls in at 92% 11FM, he would get 11FM.
I never received any info that that's the way it works in an excess bid (vs. vacancy bid) except for the blurb we both found in the contract. It may be that that was part of the software issue; don't know. Bottom line, be careful about your standing bid.
03-15-2009, 06:38 PM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: Continuing The Dream
Posts: 161
I'm trying to find in our CBA, FOM, the People Manual, where the hiring requirements state 'verified resignation from previous employment required'. I'm sure it's probably there - I just can't find it. And . . . didn't the Company check all that stuff during the interview process?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
