FDX: Seat Bid
#124
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 329
I'm really curious how the 9 current 727 captains who were awarded 757 on this bid and have been receiving passover pay for years (all WB captains for pay) think they're going to get away with not paying back the POP? A quick read of Section 24.D.2.c. shows one has to move up the pay scale on an "different intervening award" to avoid paying POP back.
#126
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 329
That's a good idea, but certainly not in the language. The wording seems pretty clear, as do the examples in the table. Bid award must be to a higher paying seat, or you pay POP back. Doesn't have to be to the seat the POP was paid at, just higher paying than current seat.
#127
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: MD-11 F/O
Posts: 55
That's a good idea, but certainly not in the language. The wording seems pretty clear, as do the examples in the table. Bid award must be to a higher paying seat, or you pay POP back. Doesn't have to be to the seat the POP was paid at, just higher paying than current seat.
#128
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 121
#130
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 329
You're exactly correct on the language. However, the examples on the sample table only grant exceptions if the follow on award is at a higher pay rate. If you had an Airbus F/O Flex getting POP who decided to bid over to the 11 F/O seat and actually trained in that seat, do you think he'd be exempt from POP payback? I have no problem with POP, just with people getting it for years and years and then making a lateral jump. They got paid WB, they need to go to the WB. If they had quit their instructor positions on the 72 at any time (or got fired), their two choices would have been to to to training on the POP WB aircraft or pay back all the POP. This stinks of favoritism and selective contract application...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post