FDX - The financial impact of 4.a.2.b
05-05-2010, 05:19 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
The hypocrisy -
Those that flame about use of the numbers now will vehemently defend their right to said pay when they upgrade....They will have earned it.
That said, it's tough for many to see the numbers posted. It's human nature to not want to be reminded of what you don't have but want. Kinda like when the CA who shows you pictures of his vacation home, sports car, homebuilt airplane and trophy wife.
Forget the PC crap you say? Sounds like a single seat cockpit type of comment. Our feeders fly those, maybe that's where you belong.
Those that flame about use of the numbers now will vehemently defend their right to said pay when they upgrade....They will have earned it.
That said, it's tough for many to see the numbers posted. It's human nature to not want to be reminded of what you don't have but want. Kinda like when the CA who shows you pictures of his vacation home, sports car, homebuilt airplane and trophy wife.
Forget the PC crap you say? Sounds like a single seat cockpit type of comment. Our feeders fly those, maybe that's where you belong.
05-05-2010, 07:59 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 357
There's something I'm not getting. You're making less because you were excessed to a narrow body, not because of 4.a.2.b. The 757 BLGs/RLGs have been above guarantee every month, haven't they? Except for the months from JAN09 until you activated in the 757, you haven't been touched by 4.a.2.b.
If you want gripe about the excess have at it, but save the 4.a.2b whining for those of us who had the 54 hour BLGs.
If you want gripe about the excess have at it, but save the 4.a.2b whining for those of us who had the 54 hour BLGs.
Shack.
ALPA put out a message a few months back which said their dues collection hasn't changed that much. Therefore the company is basically paying the same amount out in salaries. It's just going to different people.
You want to blame someone for your loss, ask why we needed an excess out of the 727 SO seat followed shortly by a excess out of all the other seats.
05-05-2010, 09:31 AM
#53
Slainge Var'
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Zeppelin Tail Gunner
Posts: 1,530
So, the folks here who thought it was improper for him to post his annual salary for the last 5 years, shouldn't have an ATP? Interesting headwork.
05-05-2010, 09:33 AM
#54
Slainge Var'
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Zeppelin Tail Gunner
Posts: 1,530
05-05-2010, 02:33 PM
#57
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 798
05-05-2010, 07:06 PM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: MD-11 Guru
Posts: 208
What is the Status of 4a2b?
Is this still in effect? If so, to what degree? Can someone post a relatively accurate percentage of reduced pay hours system wide due to this part of your contract at the current time?
TIA
MD
TIA
MD
05-05-2010, 11:21 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 102
In order to resolve Grievance 09-03, the Company and ALPA agree as follows:
Definition: System-wide Average Metric (SAM)
The same credit hour (CH) determination made in Section 25.C.8., as if there were no bid period package published for the applicable group of pilots in a base. [LEFT]
A. The full PSIT shall participate in the facilitation of this Settlement Agreement in conjunction with the performance of their duties as outlined in Section 25.BB.
B. Buy Up Value (BUV)
The Company shall "buy up" any line that is built below the BUV for that bid period. The BUV shall not exceed 68/85 CH. The BUV shall be the following:
1. For the April 2010 bid period, the SAM less 3.5 CH.
2. For the May 2010 bid period, the SAM less 3 CH.
3. For the June and July 2010 bid periods, the SAM less 2 CH.
4. For the August 2010 bid period, the SAM less 1CH.
5. For the September 2010 bid period and thereafter, the SAM.
05-06-2010, 09:15 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: Heavily Involved
Posts: 473
In the interest of fairness to those that have posted on this thread with realistic arguments, I will have to partially concur with something.
It may be true that those of us in my relative seniority bracket are most affected financially due to the huge seniority realignment bid. It was more PC's desire to allow senior engineers a shot at their w/b captain seat than DW's age 65 debacle in my opinion. The company could have just payed passover, saved training costs, and waited for those over 60 to go away, but instead chose to shake the whole list up with the realignment.
In my opinion, perhaps in error, 4.a.2.b. was part and parcel to the realignment of the seniority list. I felt that one did not exist without the other and perhaps I am wrong there.
I did go back and look at how 4.a.2.b affected me while I was still in the MD11 and the figure was roughly $34,500 in lowered BLG/RLG.
Now that I am in the N/B pay bracket, obviously 4.a.2.b doesn't effect me at the moment since the BLG's are still over min in the 757.
So to those of you pointing this out, I concede.
It may be true that those of us in my relative seniority bracket are most affected financially due to the huge seniority realignment bid. It was more PC's desire to allow senior engineers a shot at their w/b captain seat than DW's age 65 debacle in my opinion. The company could have just payed passover, saved training costs, and waited for those over 60 to go away, but instead chose to shake the whole list up with the realignment.
In my opinion, perhaps in error, 4.a.2.b. was part and parcel to the realignment of the seniority list. I felt that one did not exist without the other and perhaps I am wrong there.
I did go back and look at how 4.a.2.b affected me while I was still in the MD11 and the figure was roughly $34,500 in lowered BLG/RLG.
Now that I am in the N/B pay bracket, obviously 4.a.2.b doesn't effect me at the moment since the BLG's are still over min in the 757.
So to those of you pointing this out, I concede.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
