FCFS Handicapping System

[nycbusdriver]

I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be grieved. I agree that it should, but non rev travel is much more of a grey area than compensation. There's nothing stopping the company from charging for travel, or from revoking it from everyone. I don't think that should fleet/agents win their grievance, DOH be instituted as the way to travel - they might have to keep the two systems seperate. That way, the company gets it's synergies and the workers don't- sounds grand. Pay vs travel benefits are apples and oranges, one is a major dispute and you know that.

 
How would the integration of a DOH and FCFS system work?
 
Obviously from my experience, the agents can't even handle the FCFS system properly.

 

[traderjake]

 
How would the integration of a DOH and FCFS system work?

 
Everyone starts out with their FCFS position and then for example all the Flight Attendants are reordered by DOH among the FCFS positions held by Flight Attendants. 
 
Obviously the company is not going to do that because it's too complicated.
 
The Flight Attendant contract is not going to dictate how other employee groups board. 

 

[Hope777]

 
How would the integration of a DOH and FCFS system work?
 
Obviously from my experience, the agents can't even handle the FCFS system properly.

Maybe a time cut off.  Say those who list 48hrs in advance and check in 24 hrs in adavance board by DOH and then anyone listing within 48hrs and check in less than 24 hrs, board by FCFS.  It should be ALL or none of the AA system.  Not 1/2 & 1/2 

 

[Jester]

Maybe a time cut off.  Say those who list 48hrs in advance and check in 24 hrs in adavance board by DOH and then anyone listing within 48hrs and check in less than 24 hrs, board by FCFS.  It should be ALL or none of the AA system.  Not 1/2 & 1/2 

 
I have said pretty much the same thing... the argument in favor of FCFS is that it would prevent last minute listing from bumping someone off the flight (although we still do have vacation passes which would effectively do the same thing, right?), and allow someone to plan accordingly in finding alternative plans with enough time to do so.
 
A 48-hour window would recognize seniority (usually something people support), while giving enough notice to people 24 hours out as to the stand-by situation in order to make alternative plans, while allowing people to "lock-in" within that 24-hour window, so they know their ranking on the stand-by travel.
 
Personally, I can live with either one... I was FCFS under America West and seniority under US, and it really didn't seem to make much of a difference in my experiences.  I would like a compromise solution as to end the bickering between airline groups though.

 

[john john]

Apparently the union doesn't feel it necessary to include that in negotiations and no one has complained.

The CWA grievance has value the Company needs to negotiate a contract with CWA .CWA should ask for generous compensation for changing DOH boarding. I wouldn't be surprised if the Company tries to include the change in a LOA. Since the Company is violating the contract (if the arbitrator agrees with the union), the members should be compensated. If the Company violates the contract then there needs to be an incentive for the Company to abide by the contract
Does the flight attendants still have it in there contract when they retire that they fly as active and not retired if so this will put another twist in the mix

 

[blue collar]

 
How would the integration of a DOH and FCFS system work?
 
Obviously from my experience, the agents can't even handle the FCFS system properly.

They wouldn't need to be integrated until JCBAs have been reached for fleet/agents. When that happens, and any DOH language is removed then they'll integrate the two using FCFS, just like they want to use now.

 

[blue collar]

The CWA grievance has value the Company needs to negotiate a contract with CWA .CWA should ask for generous compensation for changing DOH boarding. I wouldn't be surprised if the Company tries to include the change in a LOA. Since the Company is violating the contract (if the arbitrator agrees with the union), the members should be compensated. If the Company violates the contract then there needs to be an incentive for the Company to abide by the contract
Does the flight attendants still have it in there contract when they retire that they fly as active and not retired if so this will put another twist in the mix

Not to re-hash this whole thing, but it's good that you guys (cwa) also grieved it. At least, no matter how the arbitrator rules, all of the speculation will be over. I don't know how your CBA reads, but I don't agree that the fleet contract is strongly worded, it is only mentioned in a description as to what Date of Hire is, and used for. I didn't see anything in there that said DOH how the company must implement travel. Like I said, at least an arbitrator will sort it all out, even though there will be sore feelings on the losing side.

 

[pjirish317]

 

They wouldn't need to be integrated until JCBAs have been reached for fleet/agents. When that happens, and any DOH language is removed then they'll integrate the two using FCFS, just like they want to use now.

 
blue,

You, nor I, or anybody else for that matter, can say for certain that the laguage will be removed. The copmpany may "want" it removed, but it is no guarentee. That is up to the negotiating committee to decide.

 

[pjirish317]

 

Well, while you are determining that the arbiter is wrong, why not look up the definition of binding arbitration., or get an adult to explain it to you.  At this point it doesn't matter whether the arbiter was right, wrong, or a ham sandwich.  The binding decision was in favor of the company.

 
jim,

the arbitrator ruled on the language specific to the F/A contract. It does not explicitly state in their CBA that they board for non-rev travel by D.O.H. like it used to. It was removed willingly or unwillingly, I do not know which. So that ruling is binding for the F/A's and the company, not the other groups on the property, just my opinion though. I could be wrong. I have posted numerous times the language in our CBA here. It does EXPLICITLY state we board for non-rev travel by D.O.H. Time will tell how this shakes out.

 

[AirwAr]

 
 
.... It does EXPLICITLY state we board for non-rev travel by D.O.H. Time will tell how this shakes out.

 
If it does shake out your way...hopefully it means you'll get DOH only on LUS metal.  And since US will be no more very soon...welcome to FCFS!

 

[pjirish317]

 Just because the USAirways name goes away, it doesn't mean their contractual obligations do. So it could be that for LAA agents, welcome to D.O.H. Because the truth is, none of us know how this will end up.

 

[blue collar]

Pj- the way I read your contract is that portion is explaining what each type of seniority is used for. It doesn't explicitly state that travel benefits will be a DOH system. Because it is silent on that, I don't think it is winnable.

 

[cltrat]

 
 
blue,

You, nor I, or anybody else for that matter, can say for certain that the laguage will be removed. The copmpany may "want" it removed, but it is no guarentee. That is up to the negotiating committee to decide.

pj I have to disagree on the JCBA part, the company wants FCFS and they won't go for DOH being in it. I for one am not willing to give anything scope or moneywise for how I get on an airplane. we may win that grievance  but DOH boarding is dead an a JCBA.

 

[jimntx]

 
 
jim,

the arbitrator ruled on the language specific to the F/A contract. It does not explicitly state in their CBA that they board for non-rev travel by D.O.H. like it used to. It was removed willingly or unwillingly, I do not know which. So that ruling is binding for the F/A's and the company, not the other groups on the property, just my opinion though. I could be wrong. I have posted numerous times the language in our CBA here. It does EXPLICITLY state we board for non-rev travel by D.O.H. Time will tell how this shakes out.

You missed my point.  Yes, your current contract specifies DOH boarding.  However, the arbitrator may decide that the fine print that says the program can be modified, or even eliminated, by the company at any time for any reason prevails over the DOH boarding clause.  We'll just have to wait and see.  Over the past few years in the airline industry as a whole, arbitrators ruling for the company and against the union seems to have become more and more frequent.

 

[pjirish317]

blue,
 
I disagree. It states we board for non-rev on line space available travel by D.O.H., and that we are afforded the EXACT same travel benefits as established by the company for EVERYBODY in the company. I guess we will find out.
 
jim,
 
do you honestly think that the company would eliminate the on-line travel for EVERYBODY, because that is what it would take to get rid of D.O.H. IMO anyway. As to the arbitration rulings going in the company's favor, we will see how this one shakes out. That is why strong contractual language is key. Hard to rule against it.
 
rat,
 
I never said I was willing to give up anything to eliminate D.O.H. boarding. What is the company willing to give us to get it removed, is what I am saying.