US Pilots Labor Discussion 8/25- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[767jetz]

Okay. Tell me this. How could it be physically possible for flight attendants and pilots to keep together for an entire pairing if they are not co-domiciled?

Easy. As one example, a 4 day pairing of flight attendants from PHX could layover in PHL on day one, fly the next 2 days with a PHL pilot crew, and end up in PHX on day 4. But only if it is not against your company policy to fly day 1 and 4 with a different crew. This was why I asked the question in the first place. The above scenario could happen if the f/a's negotiate away the requirement to stay with the pilots from start to finish, while still meeting the pilot's requirement to do so on their pairings.

But on another note, unless prohibited by contract, the company could create a PHL satellite base for west f/a's (or even TDY) if it facilitates west pilots flying PHL-Europe destinations on the 330 if was cost efficient for the company to do so.

I'm just throwing out possibilities, not saying this would/could/or will happen.

About UA having pilot domiciles where there are no F/As, and F/A domiciles where there are no pilots: We don't really care how you do things at UA. This is not a UA thread.

This is the kind of response that makes people think of you guys as closed-minded individuals who can not see things beyond your own world. There is a whole other world of aviation outside of the east, and some of it is successful despite doing things differently. Which is why it is healthy to look for better solutions if there are others having success with a different approach. Someone claimed that the reason the West could not fly PHL to Europe was because of the flight attendants. I'm not telling you "how it should be done." I'm only suggesting that there are alternatives that do work, using personal experience to illustrate. Why you take that so personally and get so offended is beyond me. I guess you know better than everyone else. Please excuse my ignorance.

I'm not sure what the east F/A restrictions are, but until the pilot contract is signed, the west pilots cannot fly any PHL-transatlantic city pairs that were in effect or announced at the time of the merger. This leaves only a few possibilities, as most of the European destinations from PHL were operated long before the merger was announced. They could do TelAviv, of course. And Oslo (which is too small a market for the A330.) Maybe Athens (a seasonal destination.)

Thanks. At least that is an answer I can digest and think about. I believe it was BoeingBoy who indicated that there could be just enough of that non-TA flying to justify a PHX satellite base in PHL, shifting 330 frames to the west in exchange for 320 frames to keep the fleet count stable. Which is the crux of this whole current debate, since there are some that claim it is absolutely impossible for the west to fly any 330's across the Atlantic under any circumstances. I believe the original response I got was due to "all kinds of contract and TA language."

My point is that it is possible under the right circumstances, and the company would do so if it is economically feasible. One example would be if the pay restoration is successful and east 330 rates climb significantly. I'm sure the company will look for any and every reason to ship whatever 330 flying (or other flying) it can to the lower cost side. Of course they will exploit every loop hole they can find to make it happen and let you grieve it while they enjoy the cost savings.

 

[RSVP767]

Now here is the truth mixed with clever humor. My guess is Cleary and gangs heads are going to explode after watching this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxaQFQC0MAY

.....good grief! How embarassing!

Hey XBOX, YouTube generation....it's time to grow up! Put your toys and games and vidoe editing equipment away and get to work. What do you do with this stuff....entertain your children?

I did like this part however.....in regard to the company filed lawsuit:

BREAKING NEWS......"the Regime claims, quote; the lawsuit lacks merit and should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, end quote" to which Capt. Tony Anger smugly comments: "huh, now where have we heard that before?"

Well, let me remind you.......That is precisely what the 'Regime' said in regard to the Addington litigation. Remember.....the Addington litigation..... that was found "not ripe" and thus being 'not ripe' Judge Wake had no jurisdiction to hear the case and it was properly DISMISSED!

Yeah,......that's where you heard it!

 

[RSVP767]

Easy. As one example, a 4 day pairing of flight attendants from PHX could layover in PHL on day one, fly the next 2 days with a PHL pilot crew, and end up in PHX on day 4. But only if it is not against your company policy to fly day 1 and 4 with a different crew. This was why I asked the question in the first place. The above scenario could happen if the f/a's negotiate away the requirement to stay with the pilots from start to finish, while still meeting the pilot's requirement to do so on their pairings.

nycbusdriver, on 07 September 2010 - 09:54 AM, said:

Okay. Tell me this. How could it be physically possible for flight attendants and pilots to keep together for an entire pairing (i.e.; same #of days, same origin and termination, same legs, same, same, same) if they are not co-domiciled?

Jets,

Read the question again.

 

[Ames]

You are assuming that we will not be co-pairing with the pilots. That remains to be seen. Most of the f/a's I've talked to regard separation from the pilot pairings as a concession and will not vote for it. Myself included.

These old gals are pros but we are menopausal and a force of nature.

Yes, I do assume we will be flying together with east FA's. Sooner than we will be flying east/west pilots together. I have yet to meet one east FA who wasn't completely professional and I do not believe (as an east pilot posted) that they will give west pilots a hard time. On the other hand I have had east pilots swear at me, attempt to order me out of a crew van, deny me a jumpseat and browbeat me while on my jumpseat despite repeated requests to back off. My comment is really meant to address his threat, wherever it may originate.

I do understand the "force of nature".... married 25 years and am convinced it is that "force of nature" that keeps the world going around.

 

[767jetz]

nycbusdriver, on 07 September 2010 - 09:54 AM, said:

Okay. Tell me this. How could it be physically possible for flight attendants and pilots to keep together for an entire pairing (i.e.; same #of days, same origin and termination, same legs, same, same, same) if they are not co-domiciled?

Jets,

Read the question again.

Read my answer again. IF the f/a's negotiate their co-pairing away, then the pilots can still have a co-pairing requirement filled by my scenario. Also I said this was ONE example. We could do a cross comparison between how you currently do it and how other airlines get it done, but you have made it abundantly clear that you do not care to hear any suggestions other than what you want to hear. So you must just like to argue with people.

On that note, if you have any further banter you'd like to throw out there, please use the pm system as per the board rules, and stop trying to bait others into an endless back and forth on the forum.

 

[flybynite]

Yes, I do assume we will be flying together with east FA's. Sooner than we will be flying east/west pilots together. I have yet to meet one east FA who wasn't completely professional and I do not believe (as an east pilot posted) that they will give west pilots a hard time. On the other hand I have had east pilots swear at me, attempt to order me out of a crew van, deny me a jumpseat and browbeat me while on my jumpseat despite repeated requests to back off. My comment is really meant to address his threat, wherever it may originate.

I do understand the "force of nature".... married 25 years and am convinced it is that "force of nature" that keeps the world going around.

That's a shame that you've been denied jumpseat. Everyone should act like ladies and gentlemen and keep their opinions to themselves since this is a very touchy situation. And I have been treated very rudely by west pilots just for being from the east with no mention of your labor issues.

So, I take it you're planning to transfer east?

 

[Ames]

That's a shame that you've been denied jumpseat. Everyone should act like ladies and gentlemen and keep their opinions to themselves since this is a very touchy situation. And I have been treated very rudely by west pilots just for being from the east with no mention of your labor issues.

So, I take it you're planning to transfer east?

No plans to transfer east. I am just discussing the possibility of blending east FA and west FA's and pilots in the future. Blending of east/west pilots? Probably way in the future.

 

[flybynite]

No plans to transfer east. I am just discussing the possibility of blending east FA and west FA's and pilots in the future. Blending of east/west pilots? Probably way in the future.

Agreed on the pilot's issues.

The company has proposed co-pairing with the pilots so a split from the pilots is speculation at this time. So maybe you should be thinking of co-pairing with the wf/a's for the time being.

We are now just getting to some of the really contentious contract items such as compensation, etc. I've not heard where your JNC is on these items.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I believe it was BoeingBoy who indicated that there could be just enough of that non-TA flying to justify a PHX satellite base in PHL, shifting 330 frames to the west in exchange for 320 frames to keep the fleet count stable.

I can't name all the European routes that were flown or announced back in Sept 2005, but taking another tack there were 19 aircraft (including spares) that flew to Europe. Per the transition agreement the West can fly two of those routes - not the planes but the routes.

Today there are 7 A332's and 3 757's that could be flown by the West. That's potentially 9-10 routes worth of aircraft. Plus the 2 pre-existing routes the transition agreement allows the West to fly.

On the subject of pilots and FA's staying together, there's nothing in the East pilots' contract and don't believe in the East FA's contract that requires it. It's strictly an artifact of the "me too" clause - with the same duty rigs and duty time/rest requirements, the most efficient pairings (from the company perspective) are the same for pilots and FA's (given where the crews are based).

The "me too" does raise a problem if it is in the combined contract and the company integrates the two FA groups - do the FA's have different rigs/duty limits as the pilots they're flying with (which could change during the course of their trip), a side letter saying the "me too" applies to the pilots of the pre-merger side they're from (meaning different FA's would have different rigs/duty llimits depending on their pre-merger side, or what).

Jim

 

[767jetz]

On the subject of pilots and FA's staying together, there's nothing in the East pilots' contract and don't believe in the East FA's contract that requires it. It's strictly an artifact of the "me too" clause - with the same duty rigs and duty time/rest requirements, the most efficient pairings (from the company perspective) are the same for pilots and FA's (given where the crews are based).

Thanks for the straight forward answer. It's appreciated. They are hard to come by around here.

 

[767intl]

767intl, on 06 September 2010 - 12:07 PM, said:
Good points, PI brat. To be fair, the West wanted 90% of the 3 additional 757 slots. They didn't arbitrate. Freund told them they'd lose. So they took 50% (maybe less, I don't have the exact data, too lazy to look up also)

They did arbitrate. You're right. You ARE lazy.

Lazy yes, but in this case correct on facts. I use the word lazy as self-effacing. But your dead-serious on this. I hate to admit, but I was doing PHL committee work back then, so I knew who to call. Straight from 2 guys who were actually there, the 3 additional 757s NEVER made it to arbitration. The day before the arbitration was to start, your MEC agreed to a 60/40 E/W split in the CO/FO seats in seniority order, to begin AFTER their was a single contract. If you don't believe me, they gave me some names on your side that you can check with. Baker, Mcelveena, both MEC officers, and your MC chairman. They couldn't remember his name.

So Ames, your lack of accuracy on the 757 arbitration that never happened makes it difficult to accept your comments on other issues which are more difficult to prove/disprove.

On the other hand I have had east pilots swear at me, attempt to order me out of a crew van, deny me a jumpseat and browbeat me while on my jumpseat despite repeated requests to back off. My comment is really meant to address his threat, wherever it may originate.

When you admit that 757 arbitration never happened, maybe then the above story carries some weight. "YOUR" jumpseat? If your the CO, in the interests of safety, why didn't you order him to leave?

 

[flybynite]

I can't name all the European routes that were flown or announced back in Sept 2005, but taking another tack there were 19 aircraft (including spares) that flew to Europe. Per the transition agreement the West can fly two of those routes - not the planes but the routes.

Today there are 7 A332's and 3 757's that could be flown by the West. That's potentially 9-10 routes worth of aircraft. Plus the 2 pre-existing routes the transition agreement allows the West to fly.

On the subject of pilots and FA's staying together, there's nothing in the East pilots' contract and don't believe in the East FA's contract that requires it. It's strictly an artifact of the "me too" clause - with the same duty rigs and duty time/rest requirements, the most efficient pairings (from the company perspective) are the same for pilots and FA's (given where the crews are based).

The "me too" does raise a problem if it is in the combined contract and the company integrates the two FA groups - do the FA's have different rigs/duty limits as the pilots they're flying with (which could change during the course of their trip), a side letter saying the "me too" applies to the pilots of the pre-merger side they're from (meaning different FA's would have different rigs/duty llimits depending on their pre-merger side, or what).

Jim

Jim,

Under Section 9/Scheduling of the FA contract it states....the monthly pairings and primary lines constructed therefrom shall be the same as pilots.

And it goes on to say that they will adhere to "past practice" in so many words. About two paragraphs down.

As it stands now....the f/a JNC has negotiated better rigs for all parties. East and West f/a's.

The W f/a's have different duty limits because they aren't co-paired with their pilots and don't have the pilot FAR's to protect them. And their rigs were lousy too.

We can't intergrate the f/a's until the pilots come to some kind of agreement because we can't mix east and west metal. We are however working on Plan B.

And we are waiting on the FAA's new duty and rest requirements. This is a must for all parties. And that could be after the first of the year. Or whenever the FAA gets off their duffs.

But as I've said in an earlier post....the company wants the pilots and f/a's to have co-pairings. It was part of their proposal 2 years ago.

There is a enough wiggle room for a pilot agreement down the line yet co-pair the two work groups until the pilots figure out a decent contract.

We'll see.

 

[Ames]

Lazy yes, but in this case correct on facts. I use the word lazy as self-effacing. But your dead-serious on this. I hate to admit, but I was doing PHL committee work back then, so I knew who to call. Straight from 2 guys who were actually there, the 3 additional 757s NEVER made it to arbitration. The day before the arbitration was to start, your MEC agreed to a 60/40 E/W split in the CO/FO seats in seniority order, to begin AFTER their was a single contract. If you don't believe me, they gave me some names on your side that you can check with. Baker, Mcelveena, both MEC officers, and your MC chairman. They couldn't remember his name.

So Ames, your lack of accuracy on the 757 arbitration that never happened makes it difficult to accept your comments on other issues which are more difficult to prove/disprove.




When you admit that 757 arbitration never happened, maybe then the above story carries some weight. "YOUR" jumpseat? If your the CO, in the interests of safety, why didn't you order him to leave?

You are correct. I looked it up and found that we have an LOU for the 757 and did arbitrate the 190. I knew arbitration had been scheduled for the 757 but forgot the last minute agreement was made.

PS: Tough to order someone to leave when you are at cruise. Did, however tell him we would have the police meet him in the jetway if he didn't comply. That worked.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim,

Under Section 9/Scheduling of the FA contract it states....the monthly pairings and primary lines constructed therefrom shall be the same as pilots.

Thanks for the correction - even old dogs like me can learn something new...

Interesting that the company want's to have the pilots and FA's to fly the same trips. I'd only suggest looking that gift horse over carefully to make sure it's not just a way for them to get away from the "me too" language (and I understand that's a bone of contention between the East and West).

Jim

 

[nycbusdriver]

So should the former PI Pilots have all the 767 slots, since they were bought and ordered by PI and not US?

Not all the 767s were bought and ordered by PI.