TonyC

Did a little more studying -- a couple of the Airbus FOs have FOUR and FIVE of the disputed pairings on their lines.


Too junior to make budget?

Too senior to care?


No, I think we should refocus on Disputed Pairings, and stop this squabbling about Pay Rates. Save that discussion for the next round of negotiations. Let's concentrate NOW on what we can affect NOW.



MD11Fr8Dog -- would you mind adding 727 Pairings 400 (12,19,26Mar07), 401 (13,14,15,20,21,22,27,28,29Mar07), 403 (27, 28Feb, 01, 06, 07, 08Mar07) and 405 (26Feb, 05Mar07) to the table -- when you get a chance?


ˇ Muchas Gracias !






.

MaydayMark

Tony, Tony, Tony ...

I Like the way you think but, I suggest your logic is flawed. You have assumed, wrongly in my opinion, that documenting DP's as unsafe (FCSR's) and/or onerous (sleeplogs) will get anybody in managements attention. If management cared about those things, the pairings wouldn't be disputed in the first place ... would they?

Let's face it ... WE HAVE A TERRIBLE SAFETY RECORD!!!! I wish I was smart enough to identify the problem but it would be REALLY EASY for the compny to acquiesce on this issue just in case it was part of the problem. Obviously, the company has discounted this as part of our safety problem. They would rather just fire the offending crew when an accident/incident happens (after all, management pilots don't get into accidents flying MEM-ATL-MEM in the daytime so it must just be whiney line pilots objecting because their union tells them the pairings are onerous).


Regards,


Mark

TonyC

Seriously flawed, in my opinion. I think the SIG should have the authority to say that a Pairing is onerous, and put the King's X on it -- so nobody could fly it.


Don't hold your breath waiting for that authority.




We have what we have, and we're obligated to do the best we can with it. What the SIG CAN do is dispute a pairing, and what we as pilots CAN do is stand behind them when they do. When we refuse to fly the trips voluntarily, we strenghen their words. When we operate independently, we undermine the ONLY thing that we have working FOR us.



We don't have the luxury of changing the rules right now -- we can only operate under them, and do the best we can with what we have. Picking up trips because they make our personal schedule prettier, or because we don't like the Letter of Agreement, or because we know there are worse pairings out there does NOT make the best of what we have working for us. Supporting our SIG with our ACTIONS is the best we can do.




Remember the test of three? Is it Legal? Is it Safe? Is it Smart?


Flying a Disputed pairing, voluntarily, is NOT Smart.





.

TonyC

Well, I see your point about Management's apparent position on safety.

However, I'm not ASSUMING the pairings are UNSAFE. The SIG has identified them as onerous, and have stated why. They look onerous to me. They might be UNSAFE, too. Might be. Just in case, why not alert the crews to be a little more cognizant of their state of alertness or fatigue, increase their awareness of the same by asking them to document their sleep/duty/fatigue, and then make the decision as to whether to write a Safety Report.


There have been a number of occassions where I did things while I was fatigued that I shouldn't have, but I did not at that time realize how fatigued I was. It was only upon reflection, with that 20/20 hindsight, that I was able to see the folly of what I had done. It is in those states of fatigue that we are, ironically, least capable of making the judgment call that we are fatigued.

Providing the sleep logs and the Flight Safety Report reminder would not be intended to indict, but rather to heighten awareness. Consider it a "Red Flag" in advance.






.

RedeyeAV8r

Food for thought.........................

If we have another incident/accident (and I pray we do not) and it just so happens to have occured on one of these disputed pairings, ask yoursleves
"Would it not be benenficial to the involved crew to have some documentation from the union?"

I mean how would it look to the NTSB/FAA when the UNION said "we have a problem with this schedule, here are sleep logs and trip critique forms from crews who previously flew this and have all said it is onerous or unsafe" and the company ignored it scheduled it anyway dispite objections from the Union.
I would love to be a fly on the wall in the investigation room, especially if that info was leaked to the press.

Why do you all think the Ender's report was squelched??

pinseeker

No barrage, but food for thought. When skeds has to use a reserve to fill a DP, it makes more work for them. The harder it is for the company to fill a trip, the more likely it is that they will change it. A good example is when guys always call in sick for a specific pairing, it seems to change.

TonyC

random thought:


Would it be better to put the Trip Folder Packet IN the Trip Folder, or on the counter in front of the Trip Folder?


Hmmmmm . . .






.

MaydayMark

Let's replace the company trip folders with bright orange ones that have a copy of their calendars stapled to the front of the folder. That way everyone in ops will know this crew is flying a disputed pairing ... let them explain to their buds that they are on reserve (if they really are? It will be easy to prove, we've already provided them with a copy of their calendar).

Purple F/O

Have the desk announce, "Would the crew from Disputed Pairing XX please report to the desk for a package." That's where they would pick up the orange folder. Even at 2am, all the heads would turn to see who it was.

TonyC

LOL


That reminds me of the afternoon I heard them paging "First Officer Lavender" to the folder. I wanted to correct them, "That's First Officer NON-MEMBER Lavender."













.