Didn't take long for all the disputed pairings to disappear

Closed Thread Subscribe

Page 2 of 28

Last »

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

02-23-2007, 07:57 AM

#11

fedupbusdriver

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Apr 2006

Position: A300/310 Capt

Posts: 1,642

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1800 RVR

Are your disputed pairings not contract compliant or are they just identified as possibly fatigue-inducing trips?

In most cases they fall under the "absolute" constraints of the contract, but have been deemed as unsafe by the union.

02-23-2007, 08:19 AM

#12

1800 RVR

New ride...

Joined APC: Apr 2005

Posts: 534

Quote:

Originally Posted by fedupbusdriver

In most cases they fall under the "absolute" constraints of the contract, but have been deemed as unsafe by the union.

Thanks fedup! Can you guys post what one of the examples are?

02-23-2007, 08:42 AM

#13

MD11Fr8Dog

...Whatever It Is!

Thread Starter

Joined APC: Jul 2006

Posts: 4,680

Looks like I might have to create another Excel spreadsheat with clickable links to FedEx pairing numbers, flight numbers and calendars for those that have access to help "monitor" those flights!

02-23-2007, 08:44 AM

#14

Jetjok

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Sep 2006

Position: Retired

Posts: 3,717

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreightDawgyDog

So the question is what can we do about this? If the union tells you you shouldn't do it, and you do it voluntarily anyway, doesn't that at least approach the level of scab-like behavior? To be clear I do not think guys flying disputed pairings are scabs, but their behavior certainly makes me wonder if we could count on them to not cross a picket line one day. At the very least, they are wasting all our dues money spent on the SIG, and more importantly they are undercutting whatever legitimacy the SIG has when talking to the company. Maybe if all we do is publish a list of disputed pairings flown after the fact then it isn't very important anyway. I am contacting my rep about turning up the heat here with publishing names of voluntary disputed pairing flyers and/or seeing if we can fine them as well. In the meantime, I know a couple of these guys and I will be asking them if they know why the SIG exists and why they think they know better than the SIG about what constitutes pairings that may be unsafe. I am really sick of our own pilots selfishness and love of Brazilian women (or men?) being put above what is best for the other 4900 of us.

FDD, I agree with you 100%. I think peer pressure on top of personal contact (confrontation) will go a long way to getting guys to understand the foolishness of their ways. I'd love to see ALPA publish, on a monthly basis, the names of the guys who picked up disputed pairings. The list could be incorporated in the ALPA emails that are sent out on a regular basis, as well as being published and hung on the union bulletin boards in Memphis, Newark, Anchorage, Los Angeles, and Indy. Sort of like the union published non-members list, because that's what these guys are doing, becoming (in effect) non-members.

02-23-2007, 08:44 AM

#15

MD11Fr8Dog

...Whatever It Is!

Thread Starter

Joined APC: Jul 2006

Posts: 4,680

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1800 RVR

Are your disputed pairings not contract compliant or are they just identified as possibly fatigue-inducing trips?

They are legal and they are compliant, but compliant and legal doesn't necessarily equal smart or safe!

02-23-2007, 09:12 AM

#16

FDXLAG

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Nov 2006

Position: 767 FO

Posts: 8,047

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1800 RVR

Are your disputed pairings not contract compliant or are they just identified as possibly fatigue-inducing trips?

Here is our ALPA site definition:

A pairing will be disputed when identified by the FEDEX MEC as having been constructed with unsafe, onerous, or otherwise objectionable flying.

Don't know if there are any hard and fast rules written down anywhere. Would like to know that myself.

Are 3 legs in a critical duty period (non hub turn) automatically desputed? Or does it have to involve some high volume location with a history of drool time?

Last edited by FDXLAG; 02-23-2007 at 09:22 AM.

02-23-2007, 05:04 PM

#17

MD11HOG

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Apr 2006

Position: MD11 F/O

Posts: 653

2 birds with one stone

Quote:

Originally Posted by cma2407

Didn't take long for the disputed VCP F/O lines to vanish either.

Why just screw a South American ***** when you can screw your fellow crewmembers at the same time. Thrashauler , it didn't happen in an hour but close enough to be embarrassing.

02-23-2007, 05:32 PM

#18

MaydayMark

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Apr 2006

Position: MD-11 Captain

Posts: 4,304

Quote:

Originally Posted by FDXLAG

Here is our ALPA site definition:

A pairing will be disputed when identified by the FEDEX MEC as having been constructed with unsafe, onerous, or otherwise objectionable flying.

Here's the part I don't understand (maybe I'm just not as smart as management?) ... with our safety record, what is the company's motivation to fight with us on this matter? Why wouldn't they just say, "You're right, there might be a better (safer) way to construct that trip!"

I just don't get it ?????

Mark

02-23-2007, 06:03 PM

#19

Magenta Line

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Aug 2006

Position: Triple Capt

Posts: 608

I am pretty disappointed myself in that it took less than a couple of hours for all of the FO disputed lines to disappear.

Sad....... heck, they should have waited until AVA kicked in at least and gotten time-and-a-half!