FBO Provisions System Board Decision
02-15-2015, 06:08 AM
#21
Banned
Joined APC: May 2014
Position: Tom’s Whipping boy.
Posts: 1,182
That may have been the CAL way but for UAL it was the flying FO who was displaced with pay. The bunkie still went to work. Be it a FO or Captain IOE or even a TK trip.
The FAA changed to rules because they didn't like the idea of a FO and a "non qualified" pilot (Captain or FO) being together alone in the cockpit while the LCA was on break. Hence why they now require double augmentation.
As far as just changing to same numbered pairings with FO1 and FO2, that would be an interesting grievance since it changes current and a long used past practice.
Plus for the ultra long haul flying it could be a fatigue issue if one expects to be bunkie, and go on break first comes to work "tired" and prepared to to go to sleep while on first break but now is expected to be awake for the next 7 hours instead...or vice versa....be prepared to be awake for a long time, and now expected to go to sleep soon after departure. No good for fatigue planning.
DC
The FAA changed to rules because they didn't like the idea of a FO and a "non qualified" pilot (Captain or FO) being together alone in the cockpit while the LCA was on break. Hence why they now require double augmentation.
As far as just changing to same numbered pairings with FO1 and FO2, that would be an interesting grievance since it changes current and a long used past practice.
Plus for the ultra long haul flying it could be a fatigue issue if one expects to be bunkie, and go on break first comes to work "tired" and prepared to to go to sleep while on first break but now is expected to be awake for the next 7 hours instead...or vice versa....be prepared to be awake for a long time, and now expected to go to sleep soon after departure. No good for fatigue planning.
DC
It may have been the FO and not the IRO who got FBO'd. Can't remember- doesn't make any difference.
"Past practice" grievances are very difficult to win when there is no clear contractual language to back it up.
The FOM used to say that pilots are expected to report for duty rested and prepared for duty- or something of that nature. I know that years ago when I was IRO, there were times I would show up for a red-eye after not taking a nap- hoping I would get first break.
That too is only practice. I also remember days as DC-10 IRO where we were used as the "cruise pilot", which insured both Captain and FO were completely rested for landing and I was completely wasted. No regulations, or contractual language on any of that either.
02-15-2015, 11:35 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: 320 Captain
Posts: 666
The FAA rule change was completely arbitrary and unfounded. We had been doing it that way for decades with no problems. They are out of line on this.
It may have been the FO and not the IRO who got FBO'd. Can't remember- doesn't make any difference.
"Past practice" grievances are very difficult to win when there is no clear contractual language to back it up.
The FOM used to say that pilots are expected to report for duty rested and prepared for duty- or something of that nature. I know that years ago when I was IRO, there were times I would show up for a red-eye after not taking a nap- hoping I would get first break.
That too is only practice. I also remember days as DC-10 IRO where we were used as the "cruise pilot", which insured both Captain and FO were completely rested for landing and I was completely wasted. No regulations, or contractual language on any of that either.
It may have been the FO and not the IRO who got FBO'd. Can't remember- doesn't make any difference.
"Past practice" grievances are very difficult to win when there is no clear contractual language to back it up.
The FOM used to say that pilots are expected to report for duty rested and prepared for duty- or something of that nature. I know that years ago when I was IRO, there were times I would show up for a red-eye after not taking a nap- hoping I would get first break.
That too is only practice. I also remember days as DC-10 IRO where we were used as the "cruise pilot", which insured both Captain and FO were completely rested for landing and I was completely wasted. No regulations, or contractual language on any of that either.
What has changed is the way the new UAL is handling IOE's, and in violation of the contract and past practice. Hence why the arbitrator sided with ALPA.
So we shall see what the new way will be to comply with the grievance, and if that policy needs to be remanded to the arbitrator if it isn't satisfactory to ALPA, or if a new grievance needs to be filed.
DC
02-15-2015, 11:51 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,808
Any word on penalties? I'm one of the unwashed masses that asked for an "Order to Fly" letter as the grievance worked it's way through the process. I need to be made whole, man.
02-15-2015, 12:01 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,874
02-15-2015, 01:58 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
And yet here we are with a win in our pocket from a system board concerning OE displacements on augmented flights. We're no longer arguing about the concept behind the grievance but rather the remedy.
02-15-2015, 02:04 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: 73 CA EWR
Posts: 514
Sometimes it is black and white; Neutral LaRocco ordered the Company to comply with the cease and desist order within 30 days of January 15.
Of course our bad faith management stooges will cry foul and say they are being picked on and attempt to delay delay delay. Too bad they can't be herded out of that corporate cesspool in cuffs just to prove a point.
Of course our bad faith management stooges will cry foul and say they are being picked on and attempt to delay delay delay. Too bad they can't be herded out of that corporate cesspool in cuffs just to prove a point.
02-16-2015, 07:35 PM
#28
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: 756 Left Side
Posts: 1,629
So.. does the plot thicken?
Earlier today I got an open pairing alert-
E3IRO 20 Feb 15
Go look at it and it say this-
IRO POSITION DUE TO IOE. CP/16
Trip is a 4 day ARN with an LCA
So.. the questions are-
What are they planning to do with the FO that is on the trip?
(He's still on it, and it's part of his original line award!)
Will they be bumping him off his trip, and if so, with or without pay?
Are they starting to build 2nd IRO position trips for IOE trips?
A few guys have brought up scenarios that the company may use to cover the need for IOE on augmented trips. We may be seeing one now~
Motch
PS> For the contract guru's..
Can they reassign the FO to another trip and still pay him the greater of the two trips? or can they put him on reserve for the length of the original trip?
As I stated in an earlier post- the win for the pilot group would be either being removed from the trip and being pay protected while being at home... or being reassigned (to the 2nd IRO slot) and getting double pay. Looks like this could be our first test~
oh... and the guy who got the pairing (from open time) did a swap, so now his original pairing is sitting in open time!
Interesting times we live in.
Earlier today I got an open pairing alert-
E3IRO 20 Feb 15
Go look at it and it say this-
IRO POSITION DUE TO IOE. CP/16
Trip is a 4 day ARN with an LCA
So.. the questions are-
What are they planning to do with the FO that is on the trip?
(He's still on it, and it's part of his original line award!)
Will they be bumping him off his trip, and if so, with or without pay?
Are they starting to build 2nd IRO position trips for IOE trips?
A few guys have brought up scenarios that the company may use to cover the need for IOE on augmented trips. We may be seeing one now~
Motch
PS> For the contract guru's..
Can they reassign the FO to another trip and still pay him the greater of the two trips? or can they put him on reserve for the length of the original trip?
As I stated in an earlier post- the win for the pilot group would be either being removed from the trip and being pay protected while being at home... or being reassigned (to the 2nd IRO slot) and getting double pay. Looks like this could be our first test~
oh... and the guy who got the pairing (from open time) did a swap, so now his original pairing is sitting in open time!
Interesting times we live in.
02-17-2015, 09:21 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: 320 Captain
Posts: 666
So.. does the plot thicken?
Earlier today I got an open pairing alert-
E3IRO 20 Feb 15
Go look at it and it say this-
IRO POSITION DUE TO IOE. CP/16
Trip is a 4 day ARN with an LCA
So.. the questions are-
What are they planning to do with the FO that is on the trip?
(He's still on it, and it's part of his original line award!)
Will they be bumping him off his trip, and if so, with or without pay?
Are they starting to build 2nd IRO position trips for IOE trips?
A few guys have brought up scenarios that the company may use to cover the need for IOE on augmented trips. We may be seeing one now~
Motch
PS> For the contract guru's..
Can they reassign the FO to another trip and still pay him the greater of the two trips? or can they put him on reserve for the length of the original trip?
As I stated in an earlier post- the win for the pilot group would be either being removed from the trip and being pay protected while being at home... or being reassigned (to the 2nd IRO slot) and getting double pay. Looks like this could be our first test~
oh... and the guy who got the pairing (from open time) did a swap, so now his original pairing is sitting in open time!
Interesting times we live in.
Earlier today I got an open pairing alert-
E3IRO 20 Feb 15
Go look at it and it say this-
IRO POSITION DUE TO IOE. CP/16
Trip is a 4 day ARN with an LCA
So.. the questions are-
What are they planning to do with the FO that is on the trip?
(He's still on it, and it's part of his original line award!)
Will they be bumping him off his trip, and if so, with or without pay?
Are they starting to build 2nd IRO position trips for IOE trips?
A few guys have brought up scenarios that the company may use to cover the need for IOE on augmented trips. We may be seeing one now~
Motch
PS> For the contract guru's..
Can they reassign the FO to another trip and still pay him the greater of the two trips? or can they put him on reserve for the length of the original trip?
As I stated in an earlier post- the win for the pilot group would be either being removed from the trip and being pay protected while being at home... or being reassigned (to the 2nd IRO slot) and getting double pay. Looks like this could be our first test~
oh... and the guy who got the pairing (from open time) did a swap, so now his original pairing is sitting in open time!
Interesting times we live in.
Being displaced with pay is the best option.
If they want to entice someone to VOLUNTARILY accept moving to bunkie by offering add pay, that is one thing. But one should not be forced to do it just because they will pay you more. Some lineholders may desire to have those days off (especially if it happens on a weekend), rather then the add pay. To each their own, but make the move at the pilot's decision.
DC
02-17-2015, 08:53 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Guppy Capt.
Posts: 1,887
"The FAA rule change was completely arbitrary and unfounded. We had been doing it that way for decades with no problems
Unfounded? You have one pilot qualified, and one not (technically) on the flight deck.
I brought this up on my OE. They said the same thing. "We've been doing this for years".
OK. Then maybe you've been doing it WRONG for years.
I saw this A LOT while working for the FAA while I was furloughed. Signing off things that weren't legal... but that's how they (the office, or CMO...) have been doing it for years.
Unfounded? You have one pilot qualified, and one not (technically) on the flight deck.
I brought this up on my OE. They said the same thing. "We've been doing this for years".
OK. Then maybe you've been doing it WRONG for years.
I saw this A LOT while working for the FAA while I was furloughed. Signing off things that weren't legal... but that's how they (the office, or CMO...) have been doing it for years.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
