Schedule Synergies

[john john]

During the US Air and Piedmont merge we had big problems with crews and Aircrafts especially during irregular operations .AKA RED TAIL& BLUE TAIL. . ALPA was suing ALPA

 

[Walmartgreeter]

Well, if the flight were simply cancelled and no extra section were run--how would THAT help the reserve guy?????

And again, there are many crewmembers that think they can ignore the contract whenever.


It would help the reserve AND the guy on the street because it would MAKE management run the airline AS PER the contract. It is not the employees job to pick up the slack because management thinks every screwup is a "contigency" operation.

As to cremembers ignoring the contract....probably about 1 in a thousand compared to current management's trashing of our contract (s). How many grievances do the the pilots at east alone have?....over 300 at last count.

Pilots are having time stolen from their timeclocks on a daily basis...in a random way that varies by aircraft. How would you like to spend 6 hours of a 14 hour work day sitting in the airport, only to have 5 minutes of engines running time taken from your pay because the tug pushed back slow.

This is not apples and oranges. Enough is enough. Our contracts are being violated, and we are told to fly and grieve later. So much for your "there is nothing is the contract that says you "can't" do something. Mangement has to have the integerty to follow the contract they are SUPPOSED to follow instead of finding new ways around it.

As soon as mangement merges the airlines, they can reap the benefits of said merger...but first they have to negociate in good faith for new contracts. In my opinion is is business as usual in the sandcastle.

Greeter.

 

[rjh]

Our contracts are being violated, and we are told to fly and grieve later. So much for your "there is nothing is the contract that says you "can't" do something. Mangement has to have the integerty to follow the contract they are SUPPOSED to follow instead of finding new ways around it.

If there is nothing in the contract prohibiting one side running an extra section when a flight from the other side is cancelled--then WHERE is the violation???

Yes, I'm sure management sits around thinking "how can we piss off the crews? I know . .we'll cancel a HP flight, and run it on US metal instead. That'll teach 'em"

 

[rjh]

It would help the reserve AND the guy on the street because it would MAKE management run the airline AS PER
Greeter.

If the flight is cancelled and there is no equipment to fly it--then the reserve doesn't fly anyway. When the other airline runs an extra section, that helps our passengers--and then also allows reserves on that side to pick up extra time.

Pilots are having time stolen from their timeclocks on a daily basis...in a random way that varies by aircraft. How would you like to spend 6 hours of a 14 hour work day sitting in the airport, only to have 5 minutes of engines running time taken from your pay because the tug pushed back slow.

Greeter.

I don't know anything about the east contract--but if time is taken away because of a slow pushback--sounds like a flaw in te contract that the union agreed to.

As to cremembers ignoring the contract....probably about 1 in a thousand compared to current management's trashing of our contract (s). How many grievances do the the pilots at east alone have?....over 300 at last count.

Greeter.

If crew schedulers alone were allowed to file grievances against crewmembers (for things like late sick calls, not notifying scheduling when they decide to not fly on a scheduled DH)--there would be several dozen every month.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

" If the flight is cancelled and there is no equipment to fly it--then the reserve doesn't fly anyway."

Ok, one more time. Big picture here. It is about the contract...not the pax, not what you think should happen to help the pax. It is about managment honoring both the word and intent of a signed contract. This reserve WILL benefit, eventually, if that is done.

"I don't know anything about the east contract--but if time is taken away because of a slow pushback--sounds like a flaw in te contract that the union agreed to."

You have not a clue about what I speak.

If crew schedulers alone were allowed to file grievances against crewmembers (for things like late sick calls, not notifying scheduling when they decide to not fly on a scheduled DH)--there would be several dozen every month.
[/quote]

I don't seem to remember ALPA signing any contracts with crew sked. Crew sked is a group of talented, hardworking people, forced to implement the whims of managment even against the contract (can you say POTA...what a theft of what was supposed to be a tool to help management in special situations, shame on them.) Define "late sick call." That is your term, and has no function in aviation. A pilot is sick when he or she chooses to be. There is no timeline.

I think I have pretty much narrowed the scope of your experience..and its not anywhere near the inside of a shiny tube.

Greeter.

 

[rjh]

There's no way you can tell the entire scope of my experience from a couple of posts. You're right--I have no idea what you are talking about when you mention 5 minutes being taken away from your pay becuase of slow pushback. Of course, you don't bother to explain exactly what happens in that situation--maybe I'll agree with you on that point.

But, let's get back to what brought all these side points in the first place. You talk about managment honoring the contract--I never once said they shouldn't honor the contract. The point has been brought up about East (or West) flying an extra section when the other side has to cancel a flight for maintenance or other unforeseen circumstances.

However, nobody has been able to point out specifically where that is prohibited in the contract or transition agreement. (unless we're talking about flying to HI, Europe, or the Caribbean)

And--if it is not prohibited--how is it a contract violation??

Yes, yes, I know that scope language in the AWA contract says that flying has to be done by AWA crews and on AWA equipment. However, the AWA AFA contract also states that flying can be subcontracted to another carrier, if the flight is operated using that carrier's equipment and crews.

Since we are on 2 certificates, and we are still technically 2 divisions of the same parent corporation--running extra sections does not violate the contract (not the AWA AFA contract at least).

 

[ilg30/7]

"Ok, one more time. Big picture here. It is about the contract...not the pax, not what you think should happen to help the pax. It is about managment honoring both the word and intent of a signed contract. This reserve WILL benefit, eventually, if that is done."

And one more time.... I have seen nothing in the transition agreement that prevents operations from scheduling an extra section to cover the cancellation. I agree with Jim that the original flight crews should be pay protected, the way they are for an equipment sub or need a crew. We cover extra sections all the time. When DL, NW, or United cancel a flight, we often put on an extra section to gobble up the revenue we can get for accomodating their passengers. This most often happens from our hubs. We can accomodate passengers from other airlines, but can't protect our own? Do you really think that was the "intent" of the TA, since there are no "words" to that effect?


"I don't seem to remember ALPA signing any contracts with crew sked."

Disingenuous. Crew ssched implements the contract signed between the company and ALPA. But you knew that.

"Crew sked is a group of talented, hardworking people, forced to implement the whims of managment even against the contract (can you say POTA...what a theft of what was supposed to be a tool to help management in special situations, shame on them.)

POTA is outlined very specifically in the contract, and its implementation is governed by very strict rules. It is not a "whim" of management or crew scheduling. You will find few things crew skd liked less than calling POTA. It is done to get trips covered and prevent flights from being cancelled.

"Define "late sick call." That is your term, and has no function in aviation. A pilot is sick when he or she chooses to be. There is no timeline."

There is most certainly a timeline in aviation. There always has been. We have a schedule. We do our best to keep it. Sometimes late sick calls are avoidable, sometimes they are not. But do not pretend that the timing of when you "choose" to be sick has no effect on anybody but you.

"I think I have pretty much narrowed the scope of your experience..and its not anywhere near the inside of a shiny tube."

Not all of us work inside the shiny metal tube. I'm not sure if you believe that somehow makes your experience more authentic or valid w/ regard to these issues. Since they affect the experience of our passengers (also located in the shiny metal tube) they affect all of us.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Since we are on 2 certificates, and we are still technically 2 divisions of the same parent corporation--running extra sections does not violate the contract (not the AWA AFA contract at least).

We cover extra sections all the time. When DL, NW, or United cancel a flight, we often put on an extra section to gobble up the revenue we can get for accomodating their passengers. This most often happens from our hubs. We can accomodate passengers from other airlines, but can't protect our own?

Two different issues with the same general theme...

Assuming that the AWA pilot contract also allows "subcontracting" (I don't know), was the arrangement that this discussion is about subcontracting or just an extra section. Subcontracting implies that East would be paid some "wet lease" rate to operate the flight - was that the proposed solution? Or was East just going to operate the flight and incur the expenses while West collected the money?

Saying that the contracts allow subcontracting, so therefore any arrangement where one side's plane/crew substitutes for the other's plane/crew is disingenious at best.

Likewise, the "we do it all the time when airline X, Y, or Z cancels a flight" argument doesn't hold water. It's an apples to oranges comparison. The other airline doesn't call us and say "How about putting on an extra section to protect our passengers - and by the way, you pay for the flight but we'll keep the revenue." As was said, we fly those extra sections to generate extra revenue for ourselves, not to help the other airline out.

Unfortunately, we are in the "grey area" of being one company operating two airlines, with separate contracts containing different scope language. If we were totally separate, this would not be an issue. Once full integration occurs, this will cease to be an issue. While in this state of transition, however, it is (and will be) an issue.

POTA is outlined very specifically in the contract, and its implementation is governed by very strict rules. It is not a "whim" of management or crew scheduling. You will find few things crew skd liked less than calling POTA. It is done to get trips covered and prevent flights from being cancelled.

I presume, since I'm not in scheduling when POTA occurs, that you're correct - POTA is processed as per the contract. However, that's not what Greeter addresses. POTA is intended to be a "last resort" scheduling tool for unusual circumstances, not a mechanism used to allow the airline to routinely operate short staffed - which is what it became the last two summers and threatens to again this summer.

Often, one must look to the intent behind negotiated items in a contract - which often falls into the "past practice" arena. If a certain item was intended to be used in certain situations, actually used in those situations for decades, and then is "reinterpreted" to apply to any and all situations, a contract violation can occur even when the letter of the contract is being followed. Ultimately, that where grievance arbitrators settle the issue (and why it's important for the negotiators to keep good records and notes showing the intent of negotiated items).

Jim

ps - I'd love a definition of a "late" sick call. Is it anytime after I start feeling sick, even though I may not scheduled to fly for several days? Is it after I decide I will not be well enough to fly my scheduled trip, but some minimum number of hours (days?) before that trip starts? Is it anything after some arbitrary number of hours (days?) before my trip starts and if so, what do I do if I get sick after that deadline passes - fly sick so as not to give a "late" sick call? Finally, since some want the specific contract language quoted, where in the contract is a "late sick call" defined and/or prohibited?

 

[ilg30/7]

Two different issues with the same general theme...

Assuming that the AWA pilot contract also allows "subcontracting" (I don't know), was the arrangement that this discussion is about subcontracting or just an extra section. Subcontracting implies that East would be paid some "wet lease" rate to operate the flight - was that the proposed solution? Or was East just going to operate the flight and incur the expenses while West collected the money?

Saying that the contracts allow subcontracting, so therefore any arrangement where one side's plane/crew substitutes for the other's plane/crew is disingenious at best.

Likewise, the "we do it all the time when airline X, Y, or Z cancels a flight" argument doesn't hold water. It's an apples to oranges comparison. The other airline doesn't call us and say "How about putting on an extra section to protect our passengers - and by the way, you pay for the flight but we'll keep the revenue." As was said, we fly those extra sections to generate extra revenue for ourselves, not to help the other airline out.

Unfortunately, we are in the "grey area" of being one company operating two airlines, with separate contracts containing different scope language. If we were totally separate, this would not be an issue. Once full integration occurs, this will cease to be an issue. While in this state of transition, however, it is (and will be) an issue.
I presume, since I'm not in scheduling when POTA occurs, that you're correct - POTA is processed as per the contract. However, that's not what Greeter addresses. POTA is intended to be a "last resort" scheduling tool for unusual circumstances, not a mechanism used to allow the airline to routinely operate short staffed - which is what it became the last two summers and threatens to again this summer.

Often, one must look to the intent behind negotiated items in a contract - which often falls into the "past practice" arena. If a certain item was intended to be used in certain situations, actually used in those situations for decades, and then is "reinterpreted" to apply to any and all situations, a contract violation can occur even when the letter of the contract is being followed. Ultimately, that where grievance arbitrators settle the issue (and why it's important for the negotiators to keep good records and notes showing the intent of negotiated items).

Jim

ps - I'd love a definition of a "late" sick call. Is it anytime after I start feeling sick, even though I may not scheduled to fly for several days? Is it after I decide I will not be well enough to fly my scheduled trip, but some minimum number of hours (days?) before that trip starts? Is it anything after some arbitrary number of hours (days?) before my trip starts and if so, what do I do if I get sick after that deadline passes - fly sick so as not to give a "late" sick call? Finally, since some want the specific contract language quoted, where in the contract is a "late sick call" defined and/or prohibited?

Jim, a couple of points:

1. As far as the extra sections go, again I just have not seen anything that would amount to a violation of the TA, however the flight is set up or where the revenue and costs are extracted from (provided, as I stated before that all other legalities are adhered to). The bottom line is now, the revenues and costs are all reported to the same pool. So I'm not sure that wetleasing has any place in the discussion. When airline X, Y or Z cancels a flight, they very often call our customer service people to see if we can accomodate the reroutes of their pax. That is the start of the process that leads to an extra section being set up. I just don't see much of a distinction if the West does the same thing, practically or contractually.

2. POTA - you bring up valid concerns, but I'm just not sold on the arguement of the "intent" behind the contractual item. It's quite easy to put intent into words, if one chooses. I can tell you that for the past 10 years or so POTA has been a fairly regular occurance in scheduling. I can't speak to past practice before that. If management were to decide that the "intent" of the pilot contract were increased productivity, and therefore they could require pilots to fly 20 hours above their option, the union would (rightly) scream bloody murder.

Since I've been in a position to note such things, staffing has always been an issue. It's always been a matter of either too many pilots chasing too little time, or the reverse. Of course, in that time we have either been expanding like crazy or contracting like crazy. so that might have something to do with it also.

3. Late sick calls - The answer to your question is nowhere, nor did I intend to imply that it did. A pilot should, very simply, call off at the soonest point after he/she realizes he cannot fly his/her trip. My point to Greeter was simply that even with that ability, timelines exist and we do our best to adhere to them - and that decsion is not made in a vacuum.

 

[BoeingBoy]

As far as the TA and these "extra sections" (quotes because we're operating as two airlines), not everything is governed by the TA - there are two separate pilot contracts that still apply. Having said that, the intent of the TA language against transferring planes back or forth is to prevent transfer of flying time. While these "extra sections" seem innocuous, there's that slippery slope thing to look out for. An airplane lease expires - why not just have the other side acquire another airplane and fly "extra sections" with planes/crews from the other side since their crew costs are lower. Voila, flying is transferred. It's similiar to the argument currently occuring over the 3 757s and E190 flying - the company is going ahead with plans for East to fly them (with some valid reasons), but the TA provides for flying time from aircraft additions to be split between the two sides.

And, of course, nothing is keeping management from working out a solution on "extra sections" with the unions - other than a desire to just do what they want regardless of the union's view.

What we're seeing is the "making of the sausage" when it comes to contracts. The company pushes, the union pushes back, and usually an arbitrator decides who's contract intrepretation is right. Then it's settled until the next time the company pushes, when the cycle starts over. Greeter's "stealing time on pushbacks" has gone thru that cycle 2 or 3 times, with the ruling against the company each time, and it still happens.

Speaking only for the East experience, what generally happens is the company pushes the limits on some contract item and a grievence is filed. If a ruling for the union results, the company will push the same limits again, another grievence is filed, etc. At some point, the company will reach a settlement with the union that gives them half of what they tried to impose. They've succeeded in modified the contract by repeatedly violating the contract.

Jim

 

[john john]

As far as the TA and these "extra sections" (quotes because we're operating as two airlines), not everything is governed by the TA - there are two separate pilot contracts that still apply. Having said that, the intent of the TA language against transferring planes back or forth is to prevent transfer of flying time. While these "extra sections" seem innocuous, there's that slippery slope thing to look out for. An airplane lease expires - why not just have the other side acquire another airplane and fly "extra sections" with planes/crews from the other side since their crew costs are lower. Voila, flying is transferred. It's similiar to the argument currently occuring over the 3 757s and E190 flying - the company is going ahead with plans for East to fly them (with some valid reasons), but the TA provides for flying time from aircraft additions to be split between the two sides.

And, of course, nothing is keeping management from working out a solution on "extra sections" with the unions - other than a desire to just do what they want regardless of the union's view.

What we're seeing is the "making of the sausage" when it comes to contracts. The company pushes, the union pushes back, and usually an arbitrator decides who's contract intrepretation is right. Then it's settled until the next time the company pushes, when the cycle starts over. Greeter's "stealing time on pushbacks" has gone thru that cycle 2 or 3 times, with the ruling against the company each time, and it still happens.

Speaking only for the East experience, what generally happens is the company pushes the limits on some contract item and a grievence is filed. If a ruling for the union results, the company will push the same limits again, another grievence is filed, etc. At some point, the company will reach a settlement with the union that gives them half of what they tried to impose. They've succeeded in modified the contract by repeatedly violating the contract.

Jim

A wise and respected old man (senior) soon to be gone but hopefully not forgotten. Jim only if your uniform could talk

 

[BoeingBoy]

old man (senior)

Old is fine with me - I've worked too many years to get these creases in my face just right!

Jim only if your uniform could talk

Don't know about that, but I could probably make a pretty good soup with my tie - I've dropped enough food on it over years of eating in the seat.....

Jim