FDXLAG

You obviously don't understand the ALPA motto: What's in it for the senior (those over 53 @ DOS) guys?

LivingInMEM

We don't need professionals, we just need a notepad so we can jot down what our intent is for each of the sections. That way, the arbitrator/mediator/judge can ignore the specific wording of the contract and just reference our notes to decide how to rule.

Daniel Larusso

The majority of the language in our contract was written by the previous unions lawyers, not ALPA's. Why not rewrite the contract with ALPA's lawyers when we got our last TA? I asked that very question to one of our reps at the time, who said that the issue was discussed but that they felt it was more important to get a completed TA out for review/ratification than to send it over to the lawyers for a tuneup. I pointed out that I thought that there was a lot of loose language and sections of the contract that only related to themselves to each by presumptive logic rather than clear language. He felt it wasn't a big deal and that it was something that could be cleared up on the next contract. Well we all know now that it was a big deal, all the more so since the MEC was cognizant of it previously. Much of what the NC and crew force is having to deal with is the result of not rewriting the contract properly. There is absolutely no reason to not have a rewrite this time. It's not foolproof(few things are in this world), but it's a lot better than the words we have now this side of a BK or a Force Manure issue(yet another thing that is typically covered in most ALPA contracts but not ours).

tennesseeflyboy

I did not vote in favor of current CBA, I could not stomach it although we were being promised all kinds of fixes and "money sprinkled all over the contract" kinds of BS ; Both sides were getting hard-up to get something done and nary a one of us asked the hard questions .................. The "GRID" matrix turned out to be something that Company could schedule just "short of" it, so the payouts were hardly happening, a far cry from what was being promised and sold at the Road Shows. I also heard that the many Non Dues Paying folks were now going to be PAYING, but as it came to pass, that did not happen. Language Intent was NOT done because someone decided that they knew what they were doing and it was not necessary ................... more BS. It seems to me that I am getting LESS for MORE $$$ these days, and I don't just mean a half full bag of potato chips

nakazawa

Since the Company has elected to invoke 4.A.2.b., how does that impact 25.D.2.a-e.? VTOs are to be built to the same parameters as regular lines, except that R-days may be used. So, if there's a 13 hour split between low and high lines, and the Company has established the low at 48, how can they establish a high line value below 61? I won't argue the targeted or average line values, but 59:xx is below the contractual 13 hour split.

Have we waived, or given back on this, too? Every B-727, MEM A-300, MEM MD-11 F/O, crew member that's got a VTO with a targeted high VTO value less than 61 should be asking the question.

As long as 'regular' lines fall within the 13 hour split - I think they're legal. Any ideas?

Gunter

Sounds like a valid grievance. Are we grieving this?

FDXLAG

Are there lines in any bid pack split by more than 13 hours?

Gunter

The grievance would be about limiting secondary lines to a level significantly below the 13 hr limit.

Our rules (I think) say we should be able to populate VTOs with more CHs than the artificially low max limit coming out in the FCIFs.

FDXLAG

I don't know as long as the low line comes within 13 hours of the high line and as long as the VTO falls within that range. I think they are legal.

At least as far as section 25 goes.

nakazawa

FDXLAG - I don't think there are any regular or VTO lines with an illegal split (greater than 13 credit hours). That's pretty easy to set in the line generator. My concern is the establishment of a 'cap' that's not in compliance with the 13 hour contractually agreed to limit. If the bottom is 48 - I should be able to ask for 61 on my VTO, and not be limited to 59:xx.

GUNTER - I addressed the issue last OCT when there was no FCIF establishing the VTO 'cap'. I bid within the limits of the CBA - and was told I exceeded the 'cap' that was given to MS - the MD-11 secondary line builder. I addressed the issue to our enforcement, but the MEC opted to NOT move forward with a grievance. I doubt a grievance has been filed - or will be.