MaxKts

As long as I get, at the least, my contractually guaranteed 68/85 hours per month I'm happy. Anything more is gravy!

MaxKts

Acknowledging some large percent of the pilot group getting screwed would be admitting your suppositions are correct. I don't see it happening that way. Why would the company put a 76 into a market the 75 can serve. The smaller city markets are not going away just because FedEx bought 767's! Also, I thought the 76 was going to be undermanned - so why would the 75 flying move to the 76 bidpack?

If MEM BLG's have been consistently higher lately- wouldn't you agree someone else has been "getting screwed"?

Gunter

Looking at the April MEM Bidpacks - 757 avg BLG is 94 while MD/Airbus is 85:30-86:00. You are taking advantage of the high average right now LAG, at the expense of a couple of other, more senior, bidpacks. You might have even gotten some draft and volunteer over the last 12 months.

Why is it ok for MEM based bidpacks to be so unevenly manned without this LOA? Is it because you are on the 757?

If you're really worried about more pay you should bid wide body. Narrow body flying is about QOL or some passover pay gig.

Adlerdriver

Lag,
If there is a consistent difference between 757 and 767 BLGs, isn't it possible that it's a result of the type of flying being done by the two aircraft? We are talking about the narrow body replacement for the 727. Hub-turning to somewhere within a ~2 hour radius of MEM isn't going to generate the same credit hours as taking a 767 to Europe or South America.
Last year, the 777 BLGs were significantly higher than the MD-11. Tough to avoid when a significantly number of their flights are 4-man, over 12 hour long haul. I didn't really see that as someone's attempt at a screw job for me.

CloudSailor

Below is a cut and paste from our LEC's letter. This point is regarding pilots from other domiciles deadheaded in to fly a DP:

12. By adding international deadheads to give a CGN trip to MEM, the trip is technically no longer a disputed pairing. Ultimately, if voluntarily flown by a MEM crew, it does not count against the process.

MaxKts

Cloud, I re-posted this in the disputed pairing thread. If this came from an LEC letter then they have changed the policy on disputed pairings!

This is a change from policy in the past! I was told that "disputed pairing" was a misnomer. It is not the pairing that is disputed but a sequence in the pairing. If that sequence is continually flown voluntarily then the dispute will not hold up.

FDXLAG

Don't worry I will, I switched to the 75 when I realized BLGs were going to be out of whack. Right now we have guys bidding 75 Capt because they realize that between QOL, higher BLGS, more open time, and more C/O they can make the same money as a WB capt on reserve.

But the point, is the reason the blgs are different for the Bus and the MD is because those seats are overmanned and shrinking. There is not a MEC and Company policy that says we will take bus and MD flying and give it to the 75/77 and never give it back. We will soon have a policy that says this in the 75/75. BLGs fluctuate between bid packs, that is life. But when a 76 F/O on reserve is making more that a 75 Capt on reserve because one has an rlg of 74 and the other a rlg of 68 are we protecting seniority or encouraging down bidding?

RedeyeAV8r

Lag Contractually no Bid packs are guaranteed anything above the Contractual Min of 68/85. I don't hear you complaining that an Equal Seniority Peer of yours on the 727 is making 6-10 hours less than you are each month currently, but interestingly you are concerned about potential 767 BLG's being higher than yours. I agree it isn't fair for you to make more BLG each month than your same seniority FO peer in the MEM 727 as is happening now. But that is how it is.

You seem to have some wild idea that the Company is going to move massive amounts of 757 Flying (which is paid at NB rates) into the Potential WB 767 Bidpack. I guess we just disagree on the punitive financial incentive for the Company to do this. Why would the Company Plus up a WB Bid Pack if they can pay less if it is flown in the NB bid pack?
That makes zero Financial sense. Yes I agree they will have some 757 to make lines, but again it is all at WB Rate.

Now I grant you, the LOA says this can be done, but I just don't see why you think the company will do it on a massive scale the way you think, or why even if they do it, why it is a Bad thing (assuming your 767 conspiracy is true) since it will be paid at widebody rate. More flying in the 767 means more WB seats for everyone. Maybe that FO just Senior to you in the 757 will bid up and thus you will move up in the 757 if that is where you want to stay. Isn't that a good thing? More Higher paying seats than lower paying seats?

It almost sounds like you have WB envy.
Either you can't hold WB now or don't think you will be able to hold a when the 767 is posted (but I suspect you can or will if you choose)
or You don't want to move up to a WB due to seniority reasons. A personal Choice for sure and that is fine.
If this LOA passes, either Bid it so you can partake of this Hypothetical High 767 BLG or be happy being Senior in the 757 Seat, perhaps much more senior.

CloudSailor

Thanks for reposting on the correct thread MaxKts. Posted from my phone.

FDXLAG

Nope bid packs are manned by SCH. So in theory manning should be similar. Historically WB manning is typically more than NB manning to account for RFOs etc. BLG is a function of available trips divided/manning. If you take trips from one pile and add them to another it will skew the BLG. As Gunter likes to point out when we take trips from the bus or the MD and give them to the 75 and 77 BLGs get out of whack.

I don't think ALPA is purposely out to screw anyone, it is just the mindset of the Union. And I don't think it is protecting that many seats.