pilot141

Hmmm...a guy who could never hold Captain stateside whoring himself out as a WB Captain in HKG - shocking! I'll take a wild guess and say he's north of 55.

As for DPs, one of the problems is that we've had a long time in the Boeing with no disputed pairings, so it has fallen out of many guy's crosscheck.

Tonight I watched a Captain do the gnat's-ass press "Enter" game on a general makeup request. About 30 mins later he hooted that he got it (we were all amazed that he didn't get an Earlier Time Stamp). When I came over to look at his trip I said "Hmmm.....number 87. I saw that trip a lot on the DP list."

"DP?" he said.

Yes - many guys don't realize that there are a LARGE number of DPs in the Boeing this month. Educate your friends. I told him that pretty much anything that goes through STL was disputed this month.

It might not look "that bad", but it could have 3 legs after a critical period start. They are disputed for a reason, people.

atsfdx

From the "April SIG Notes", the above quoted pairing is not in dispute.

From "3-26-09 Message Line", the pairing does appear to be in dispute.

I think that the SIG notes probably are correct as copied below.

A300 HKG

Disputes:

#26 - Two hub turns followed by a long day period and then right back to a long hub turn night. Rolling body clock is fatiguing.

#28 - Three consecutive 24-hour layovers that swap the body clock each time; Fatiguing.

#3016 - Two 24-hour layovers that switch body clock from hub turn to long day and right back to a hub turn; Fatiguing.

PattyMcGroin

At times like this it seems like bickering about disputed pairings is just ridiculous. I know the SIG puts in alot of time and thought to getting our pairings right. Not that it hasn't served its purpose in the past but unfortunately, it does not work anymore. We have to make a concerted effort in the next contract to get the scheduling language correct and then let it be. If its in open time then we should be able to swap, drop and pickup as we want to. This junior high, "he did, she did, I never would unless I really needed the days off" bs is dividing us. We don't need this now. Stand together

boost

Um actually that pairing is disputed...3011/7APR HKG CA. It is on the disputed pairing email 3-26-09.

https://pilot.fedex.com/vips-bin/vipscgi?webtr?3011?HKG?30?7APR09

FDXLAG

And why would the company agree to change the language when we have guys like you (in times like these) agreeing to fly anything anytime?

yeah right

Its not disputed. The earlier ALPA email was in error (not the first time either). This is the official list from the ALPA website. Lets not kill a mockingbird.






Disputed Pairings
727 MEM: #87, #92, #228, #229, #230
MD11 MEM: #6, #19, #107, #290, #316, #324, #338, #347, #403, #406, #408, #790, #2028
MD11 ANC: #11, #21, #90, #143, #2078

MD11 LAX: #43
A300 MEM: #346, #352
A300 HKG: #26, #28, #3016

TurnAndBurn

So you fly WHATEVER is available to you, or what?

Just wondering......

DLax85

...the screen name says it all.

Auger In

It's 0645 PST Friday morning. There are 11 DP's currently in open time for the 727 FOs. There are NONE left for the CAs. The CAs sucked up those DPs faster than a Hoover Delux. Nice going CAs, what a way to demonstrate your sense of unity, especially at a time like this.

skypine27

Note: Pairing 3011 is not disputed.

I just received an email from the HKG rep. 3011 is NOT disputed (error in the original ALPA email), but 3016 is. (which a different guy picked up already)

But the guy on 3011 is not in the wrong. My apology to him and everyone else.