Vaccination status
You mean this doesn't count?
12-13-2021, 05:20 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,395
Last time I checked OTP paid 125%.
That could end up being a lot more expensive for the company than just paying us 12 hours for the knowledge they seek.
But I am sure there are smarter people that will figure this out.
That could end up being a lot more expensive for the company than just paying us 12 hours for the knowledge they seek.
But I am sure there are smarter people that will figure this out.
12-13-2021, 06:28 PM
#34
Contract 2021
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 777 - Both
Posts: 438
Yes, I've read the history. You're seriously muddying the waters going off on this tangent. My only point was the fallacy in suggesting that pulling out of the Travel MOU would somehow bring the company back to the table with another China MOU. There is no leverage there because they can do exactly what they're doing right now with a few more hoops to jump through.
Now you're suggesting that our Captains use jumpseat denial as a bargaining tool. Do you really think a collective effort to deny operational jumpseats to the company is a valid enforcement of Captain's authority? I doubt that would pass the RLA sniff test. The jumpseat history and Captain's authority battle to which your referred had to do with non-pilot horse handlers carrying potentially lethal drugs who had minimal vetting riding on the flight deck. Moving our own pilots via JS because there are no commercial options is hardly the same thing. Could Captain's deny company scheduled operational JSers? Sure. I've seen several do it because the number of JSers exceed the FOM JS matrix or the Captain's own personal maximum for JSers out of Covid concerns, crew comfort or whatever other valid reasons they had. But the bottom line is, they had a reason and gave it to the DO or whatever management rep asked them for it as would be expected in the process of exercising their authority over the JS. "Cuz I want another China MOU" isn't on the list of options.
Now you're suggesting that our Captains use jumpseat denial as a bargaining tool. Do you really think a collective effort to deny operational jumpseats to the company is a valid enforcement of Captain's authority? I doubt that would pass the RLA sniff test. The jumpseat history and Captain's authority battle to which your referred had to do with non-pilot horse handlers carrying potentially lethal drugs who had minimal vetting riding on the flight deck. Moving our own pilots via JS because there are no commercial options is hardly the same thing. Could Captain's deny company scheduled operational JSers? Sure. I've seen several do it because the number of JSers exceed the FOM JS matrix or the Captain's own personal maximum for JSers out of Covid concerns, crew comfort or whatever other valid reasons they had. But the bottom line is, they had a reason and gave it to the DO or whatever management rep asked them for it as would be expected in the process of exercising their authority over the JS. "Cuz I want another China MOU" isn't on the list of options.
well said. The Company seems to own the ball on this one. They can look for voluntary participation. Seems to be the way around actually Negotiating with us. I don’t really care if they ask- I’ll make my own decision to answer.
If they choose to play hardball, all bets are off. They have the language in the CBA. The entire thing just seems short sighted and from what I’ve heard, it’s a high level decision moving this issue without a negotiated agreement with the Union.
Perhaps it sends the wrong signal to the rest of the employees. That appears to be the overall concern. JMHO.
12-14-2021, 05:28 AM
#35
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2014
Posts: 63
Are we serious?
If you "volun-TOLD",- I mean reported- your vax status either way, do you think your sched won't get blown up?
If you report "vaxxed", your sched will blow up to cover someone else's pairing and you'll get to fly legs you did not bid, or back-end DH's taken away.
If you report "non-vaxxed", your sched will blow up from substitution, or scheduling accommodating your travel restrictions. (Just like those currently without visas.)
What's the difference, other than another requirement from the company to aid the defunct scheduling department DURING CBA AMMENDABILITY?
Can we please continue to clear out our calendars to pick up more draft, AVA and Open Time right now? After all... we're just "flying BLG".... right??? That makes it ok.... right??? Come on, guys and gals. Let's get with the program!!! Personally, I'm fatigued from hotel prisons, CIQ restrictions, and atta-boy emails during record profits and record volume. I'm flying my awarded line and enjoying my days off without trolling open time.
If you report "vaxxed", your sched will blow up to cover someone else's pairing and you'll get to fly legs you did not bid, or back-end DH's taken away.
If you report "non-vaxxed", your sched will blow up from substitution, or scheduling accommodating your travel restrictions. (Just like those currently without visas.)
What's the difference, other than another requirement from the company to aid the defunct scheduling department DURING CBA AMMENDABILITY?
Can we please continue to clear out our calendars to pick up more draft, AVA and Open Time right now? After all... we're just "flying BLG".... right??? That makes it ok.... right??? Come on, guys and gals. Let's get with the program!!! Personally, I'm fatigued from hotel prisons, CIQ restrictions, and atta-boy emails during record profits and record volume. I'm flying my awarded line and enjoying my days off without trolling open time.
Last edited by Merica; 12-14-2021 at 05:48 AM.
12-14-2021, 07:26 AM
#36
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
.
12-14-2021, 07:36 AM
#37
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
I'm glad you're not playing checkers for us. Read the contract (what a concept) and your sly chess move will seem pretty stupid. The company can position us on our jumpseats any time they want without the Travel MOU - it's in the contract. All they need is management approval and a report detailing why to the SIG. They can also get us back to base on jumpseats as long as they meet the fly window constraints and put the corresponding fare in our travel bank.
So, to teach them a lesson and bring them back to the table with a China MOU (part deux), you're going to take away from all pilots all the benefits of the MOU - like no cutting travel bank in half, travel bank for front-end JS deadheads, rental car options, enhanced GT limits without pre-approval, personal car use and hotel isolation credit. In exchange, they get to continue to move us on our own metal just like they do now under the MOU but will need to ask themselves for permission and send a report to the SIG. Got it. Absolute genius.
But you make a great case for how valuable this ability (to build bidpack trips) must be to The Company. All those perks enjoyed by pilots who never have to touch Asia, never have to be confined to hotel room after hotel room, never have to share the cockpit and supernumerary area of a B-777 (which is part of the cockpit on the B-777) with 5 other jumpseaters on a 7-hour leg, cost The Company money. A lot of money. And yet, The Company continues to give us that money because the ability to build bidpack trips with Operational Jumpseats must be more valuable to them than the money they're spending on the benefits we enjoy.
.
12-14-2021, 07:51 AM
#38
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Yes, I've read the history. You're seriously muddying the waters going off on this tangent. My only point was the fallacy in suggesting that pulling out of the Travel MOU would somehow bring the company back to the table with another China MOU. There is no leverage there because they can do exactly what they're doing right now with a few more hoops to jump through.
Now you're suggesting that our Captains use jumpseat denial as a bargaining tool. Do you really think a collective effort to deny operational jumpseats to the company is a valid enforcement of Captain's authority? I doubt that would pass the RLA sniff test. The jumpseat history and Captain's authority battle to which your referred had to do with non-pilot horse handlers carrying potentially lethal drugs who had minimal vetting riding on the flight deck. Moving our own pilots via JS because there are no commercial options is hardly the same thing. Could Captain's deny company scheduled operational JSers? Sure. I've seen several do it because the number of JSers exceed the FOM JS matrix or the Captain's own personal maximum for JSers out of Covid concerns, crew comfort or whatever other valid reasons they had. But the bottom line is, they had a reason and gave it to the DO or whatever management rep asked them for it as would be expected in the process of exercising their authority over the JS. "Cuz I want another China MOU" isn't on the list of options.
The Captain's authority is established by 14 CFR, not by FedEx management, crew scheduling or Jumpseat Admin. If a Captain were to bump a jumpseater from a supernumerary or "courier" seat, he/she may have to provide an explanation to someone. If the jumpseater is bumped from the cockpit, no explanation to anyone is required. Period.
Let me repeat this. "Answering to management" is absolutely NOT "expected in the process of exercising their authority over the JS." Any such expectation would be a chilling of the PIC's authority, and we've already established that clearly and emphatically.
.
12-14-2021, 07:53 AM
#39
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
