FDX PSIT and SAM
02-24-2010, 07:04 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 331
3. If the SAM is lower than 61/76 CH for three consecutive bid periods, either party may cancel this Settlement Agreement.
Someone help me out here.... does this not mean that if the Company lowers the sam and wants to keep it low, after 3 months they cancel this and do as they please
I am no lawyer, but I did stay at the Holiday Inn Shifu once.......
Someone help me out here.... does this not mean that if the Company lowers the sam and wants to keep it low, after 3 months they cancel this and do as they please
I am no lawyer, but I did stay at the Holiday Inn Shifu once.......
02-24-2010, 07:13 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Sure, no problem.
It means Busboy isn't on the Negotiating Committee. Nothing in it for you, sorry.
I give praise to the NC for working this. Defining 4a2b and making the company do it in a reasonable manner couldn't have been easy to negotiate. There are always those in management (pilots) who want to climb the ladder by trying to prove how anti-pilot they can be.
For you naysayers, the current NC did a much better job than those who took FDA LOA openers and ran with it with a dog and pony show complete with rumors about foreign pilots taking our flying.
It means Busboy isn't on the Negotiating Committee. Nothing in it for you, sorry.
I give praise to the NC for working this. Defining 4a2b and making the company do it in a reasonable manner couldn't have been easy to negotiate. There are always those in management (pilots) who want to climb the ladder by trying to prove how anti-pilot they can be.
For you naysayers, the current NC did a much better job than those who took FDA LOA openers and ran with it with a dog and pony show complete with rumors about foreign pilots taking our flying.
Last edited by Gunter; 02-24-2010 at 07:25 AM.
02-24-2010, 08:03 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Being that the Company agreed to any kind of buy-up or exit strategy from 4a2b with no apparent give up from us tells me that we are probably very close to exiting anyway. I would doubt if the buy-up actually comes into play for anyone. The 727 might realize a few hours of buy-up before an exit, and they surely deserve it.
If the agreement had been in place for March, with a SAM -3.5, the buy-ups for the lowest paying lines in the bidpack, would have been:
727 Cap + 5 hrs
727 F/O +2.5 hrs
BUS Cap +3 hrs
BUS F/O +3 hrs
M11 Cap +.5 hrs
A11 Cap +3.5 hrs
Without going through all the lines, I'm pretty sure that adds up to a pretty substantial amount of cash. And, I really don't think that the BLGs will be rising fast enough to outrun the settlement. Don't forget, that as BLGs rise...So does SAM.
Probably more important is that it puts a more equitable floor on the lowest of our BLGs and protects the guys in the 727...If management continues to overstock those seats.
I don't see any downside to it.
02-24-2010, 08:06 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: Socket Drawer
Posts: 1,797
What figure did you use as SAM? If 66 is SAM, then SAM-3.5 is 62.5, which is how much my VTO of 15 r days equals. So I would have gotten nothing.
But what I mean is that it doesn't start in March, but in April.
But what I mean is that it doesn't start in March, but in April.
02-24-2010, 08:08 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
I said lowest paying lines from each bidpack. Not, all lines. I used a SAM of 66.
02-24-2010, 08:18 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: Socket Drawer
Posts: 1,797
You are correct. I didn't realize that the lowest line paid less than RLG. I still think that it will not effect a large number of lines, or the Company would not have agreed to it. Kind of like the Grid Penalty Events. They tend to only give something if they know it will not be a factor. I guess I will start bidding lowest paying line instead of VTO or reserve.
02-24-2010, 08:30 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
After a cursory look at March A300...About 1/3 of the lines(100) would have been affected. With the lowest paying line gaining the 3.5hrs.
I agree that this is a good indication of line values continuing to grow. And, that's even better. Because if BLGs rise...So does SAM. Best case would be that no one ever has their line bought up. That would require a rapid rise in BLGs. But like I said, if the 727 BLGs don't come up...This is a tremendous settlement for them.
P.S. I'm only using MAR because it's the latest bidpack we have.
I agree that this is a good indication of line values continuing to grow. And, that's even better. Because if BLGs rise...So does SAM. Best case would be that no one ever has their line bought up. That would require a rapid rise in BLGs. But like I said, if the 727 BLGs don't come up...This is a tremendous settlement for them.
P.S. I'm only using MAR because it's the latest bidpack we have.
02-24-2010, 09:02 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD11 FO, ANC
Posts: 1,098
After a cursory look at March A300...About 1/3 of the lines(100) would have been affected. With the lowest paying line gaining the 3.5hrs.
I agree that this is a good indication of line values continuing to grow. And, that's even better. Because if BLGs rise...So does SAM. Best case would be that no one ever has their line bought up. That would require a rapid rise in BLGs. But like I said, if the 727 BLGs don't come up...This is a tremendous settlement for them.
P.S. I'm only using MAR because it's the latest bidpack we have.
I agree that this is a good indication of line values continuing to grow. And, that's even better. Because if BLGs rise...So does SAM. Best case would be that no one ever has their line bought up. That would require a rapid rise in BLGs. But like I said, if the 727 BLGs don't come up...This is a tremendous settlement for them.
P.S. I'm only using MAR because it's the latest bidpack we have.
to me, this is how 4A2b should have been implemented in the first place - EVEN distribution of BLGs (reduced or otherwise) SYSTEM-WIDE (agreed to intent of 4A2b when originally written??)
not hosing one seat/aircraft (727) while another's BLGs (757) remain disproportionately high.
this agreement will force the company to either:
1) fix the jacked-up manning levels (both domicile and specific seat)
or
2) distribute the known flying more evenly across all bid-packs
or
3) buy up the lines in the crew positions where they refuse to fix #s 1 or 2
