DLax85

Perhaps, but that's no justification to comprise safety (via fatigue) for efficiency.

Could have easily kept early BFM as an AM O&B....and fly QRO as a PM O&B.

1. Safe
2. Legal
3. Reliable

Let's hope QRO stays all 3 in the 757 bidpack.

Butter

Sure would be nice if the MEC lead by example! One of the MEC officers picked up a 727 DP out of open time and is flying it today!

The Walrus

If you are talking about the Capt, then he has picked up 2 this month.

FLMD11CAPT

You are both jumping the gun. The Capt. is flying both of those in "Association Flyback" status. The Association gets paid the CH's (not the Capt), Capt gets a landing, it doesn't count as a "picked up DP', a reserve guy doesn't get boned with it and the Capt writes up the "Si##y Pairing in a safety/fatigue report.
Basically he is jumping on those grenades for us. A little research will prevent these mis-understandings in the future.........

P.S. Nice 22nd post there "Butter"...........

TonyC

This is an example of the lengths to which the SS will go to defend this bunch.


Utter bull caca.






The Captain "jumped on the grenade" so he could go home.






.

FLMD11CAPT

My my Tony, you are sounding quite shrill, cynical and put out.......
And not quite sure what the "SS" reference is all about, I am not of German descent, in fact my family was quite active in the Dutch underground as well as several Uncles in the Field against Hitler, your reference is disgusting, base and beneath you .........but getting back on point, what in my post is untrue? He is in an AFB status, he will write the pairing up, and it did not go to a reserve.........and he did this instead of taking an Association paid ticket on Delta (to which he is entitled) home......for that oh so special 12hr layover before returning. Thin Tony.....pretty thin.......

TonyC

Section 25 of our Collective Bargaining Agreement, "SCHEDULING", is long and complicated. There's a lot of details in it, and the details matter. Even if one believes he knows what it says, it always pays to go back to the source document to ensure the recall is accurate. It's amazing how one small detail can completely change what you "thought" the answer was.

Paragraph 25.BB., Scheduling Improvement Group (SIG), is where most line pilots would stop reading. However, it's where we read about the Pairing Dispute process, and it's where the SIG and PSIT live. Members of the PSIT, such as FLMD11CAPT was, should be very conversant in this section.

There are two paths to Final Resolution if a Pairing Dispute cannot be resolved with the SCP meeting, the SIG Neutral Track, and the VP/MEC Chairman Track. It is in the description of the former where we find particulars about how a pairing is flown and how that might affect the Final Resolution.

In most cases, Pairings are identified by the SIG for dispute. However, there's one other way a pairing may become disputed. Para. 25.BB.F. describes the "SIG Neutral Track." Para. 25.BB.F.1.c. states that the SIG Neutral Track shall be used under a certain condition (unless the Association chooses the other track instead). The description of that certain condition is often misquoted and misused by many of us, but you'd think a SIG member, or a former SIG member, would be intimately familiar with it.

"Additionally, if on a recurring basis, a pairing, disputed or

not, appears in open time and is routinely avoided by pilots
trip trading or eligible for make-up, OTP, etc., and therefore
must be assigned to a reserve pilot, the above procedure

shall apply, ..."

Notice what follows the "therefore." It does not say, "and therefore must be assigned to a reserve pilot or picked up voluntarily as Association Fly Back (AFB) ..." This is the language which is often "thought of" when we read "flying history" two paragraphs before (data reviewed by the Scheduling Dispute Board of the SIG Neutral Track) and "flying data" several paragraphs later (data considered by the VP Flight Operations in the VP/MEC Chairman Track). It's also often misused to imply that if non-reserves fly the pairing for the month it's no longer disputable.


But what it clearly DOES say is that there is a difference between volunteering to fly the pairing and being required by Reserve Status to fly the pairing. What is observed is whether the pairing is routinely avoided, or whether pilots do NOT avoid it. Examples of NOT avoiding it are included in the explanation, followed by the abbreviation for the Latin et cetera, which means "and other things" or "and so forth." I submit that "routinely avoided by pilots trip trading or eligible for make-up, OTP, etc.," includes pilots eligible for AFB.

Let me explain why I believe AFB belongs in etc. If AFB were to fall into the same category as "must be assigned to a reserve pilot", we should be using SIG volunteers to swallow up as many disputed pairings as posible every month. Sucking those disputed pairings out of open time by flying AFB would keep our fellow pilots from accidentally picking them up, and would contribute to the track record we'd like to demonstrate that regular pilots agree with the SIG's assessment of the pairing, and they routinely avoid it -- dispute supported.

Each month we have a lot of pilots meet to build our Bid Period Packages. They scrub the pairings, dispute many, get a lot of them fixed, and then have to meet a deadline, so they leave some disputed. As long as there aren't too many, they go into open time. We hope pilots will support their work by avoiding the disputed pairings. Those very pilots who did the hard work are often discouraged when their efforts are undermined by pilots who disagree with their assessment, or just don't pay attention, and volunteer to fly the disputed pairings. But if they could "fall on the grenade" with AFB, they could remove the temptation, remove the possibility of accidentally flying the pairings.

Those pilots receive Trip Removal, paid for by The Company, for the work they do. Often times, though, the trips they are removed from have a larger Credit Hour Value than the Trip Removal they are entitled to. That's where AFB comes in. If they get, say, 2 days (12 CH) of Trip Removal, but they drop a 3-day (18 CH) trip, they are eligible for 1 day (6 CH) AFB. They could use that to fall on a 12 CH grenade. If they want to be real troopers, they can drop a 36 CH trip and use 24 CH AFB to fall on a 30 CH grenade, or a couple of 12 CH grenades.

If using AFB gains us the benefit described in Para. 25.BB.F.1.c., every MEC member and every committee volunteer should drop a trip bigger than the work they perform so they can become eligible for AFB and fall on a Disputed Pairing grenade. That's real leadership, and it would relieve the rest of us of the burden of watching out for disputed pairings.


The problem with all that is that it's based on a faulty premise. The fact is, flying a disputed pairing as Association Fly Back is not just NOT the same as flying it by a reserve. On the contrary, it's WORSE than trip trading into it or flying it as some sort of Draft, Volunteer, or Make-Up by a line pilot. It's an Association Leader saying the work of the SIG is irrelevant.






.

Laughing_Jakal

Was Tony really gone from here for five years? Seems so much shorter. I don't know what makes me roll my eyes more: Tony's "scholarly point of view" or the smarmy "Glad we had this little chat" guy.

I bet they spend a lot of time flexing in the mirror.

TonyC

Aw, come on. We both know that neither you nor I are pretty enough to spend any more time in front of a mirror than what is required to shave.

OK, so I have a little problem with brevity. Let me try this another way.


Per the contract, and as far as Disputed Pairings go, there are two ways to fly them.

1) Non-Voluntary -- On Reserve The pilot has no choice but to accept the assignment of the trip

2) Voluntary -- Draft, Volunteer, Trip Trade with Open Time, General Make-Up, Priority Make-up, Make-Up Sick, Make-Up Disability, Make-Up Vacation, ... every which way EXCEPT Reserve ... and that includes Association Fly-Back. The pilot CHOOSES to fly the pairing which has been identified by the SIG as below our standards.

In order to support the SIG process, we want the trips to be flown by the Non-Voluntary Method, by a Reserve. Period.



I remember what happened when a certain EVP picked up a Disputed Pairing. Do you? http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...cks-up-dp.html

The contrast is telling.






.

trashhauler

I hate to agree with Tony here, because it's almost an impossibility for me But I digress, he's right. A disputed pairing should never be flown voluntarily, period, end of discussion.