1 / 28

13 A -- Part III

13 A -- Part III.

lixue
Download Presentation

13 A -- Part III

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 13 A -- Part III How to use this slide show:Please Press the“F5”key on your computer now. This will enlarge the screen to “full screen mode” if it isn’t there already. If nothing happens, then just start clicking away… enjoy ;> Turn up your speaker’s volume as several slides are narrated. Click on the speaker symbol depicted here to test and adjust volume Use your computer’s arrow keys to advance the slide or to backup. Is it loud enough? TURN it up; the narration audio is week. “ ” “ ” 07-27-06

  2. About the presentation • This presentation is an overview of how our new “TAed” rules apply on building future pairings. • In this presentation, actual pairings will have the new TA’ed rules applied to demonstrate the direct impact to the pilot group. • You do not need to understand the rules for this presentation nor for the actual pairings used in the examples. • If a pairing could not have been built using the new rules, I have flagged it as an illegal trip, one that has “busted”. Please note that “Pairing” and “trip” mean the same thing. • I.e. If the new rules say you can’t exceed 4-legs and the pairing has 5-legs, it’s illegal to build; it’s a “bust”. The trip “busted” because of the new rule, whatever it may be. • Since this is an overview I generally will not focus on specific rules, some have already been explained and others (i.e. Int’l) will be explained in the near future. • The more you know about how the rules work, the easier it is to compare and weigh trades with other areas of the contract. • I will show actual trips when it may make a point easier to understand. • This is only part three of a multi-part presentation. But First……a brief discussion of a couple mechanisms of the FedEx’s current scheduling contract that will apply to this presentation.

  3. FDXThe next two slides • FDX limits are sometimes inserted for comparison. • Limits related to building schedules (trips) will normally be referenced. • Building schedules is where safety, health, quality of life, upgrade and staffing issues are initially dealt with; your initial safety valve. • Trips built with safety in mind from the beginning will dampen execution problems (actual operations) in the real world; thus, rules related to building schedules are essential. • If you’re running your engine at redline all the time, it will eventually want to blow up. When that starts to happen, you will have no more oomph or slack to “Get-R-Done” before it finally shuts down & dies. • FDX didn’t ask for as many changes in work rules or hourly rate in their negotiations…. WHY? • Later, if you want to see how FDX builds their trips under their current language (their bare-bone minimums), please refer to my “FDX Flow Chart” under the “Pre-Bankruptcy Comparisons” tab at http://IPAonTop.org or simply click here to go directly to the FDX flow chart now.

  4. Why compare a CPT with an FO? Because BOTH pilots are on the same time-line… 5-yrs with their company. It shows upgrade and financial possibilities. UPS has said WE are better off. Doesn’t appear that way to me. Upgrades at FDX in a nutshell • Hire date of FDX’s most Jr CPT is March of 2001 (727 CPT) • Looking at 5th year base salaries • FDX’s 5th year 727 CPT is at least..$144,000 –again per year. versus • UPS’ 5th year FO is roughly….. $94,000 –again per year. • That FDX pilot will make at least an additional $250,000 before one of our 2001 hires sees a CPT slot. • This does NOT include the current yearly raises at FDX; it does NOT include the raise in the next FDX contract. • It also raises issues about pension and the compounding interest lost in a 15 to 30-year career (“B-plan, 401k, etc).. • FDX announced hiring up to 70 pilots per month in 2006: • At FDX, even with better work rules, a higher hourly rate and a better pension, it sure seems like FDX pilots are upgrading faster while enjoying the aforementioned. • They even have a Scope article that supposedly has no teeth, no Hard Cap per se and a huge emergency FAR work-rule loophole, but they still get all the above, with more pilots and with much faster upgrades –by years. What’s going on? It appears that 4th year CPT upgrades are just around the corner at FDX (2002 hires). • Other issues that influence staffing: • FDX does have a pseudo-Hard Cap (see FDX 25.D.1.f -- page 166 of PDF doc). • They use a TAFB limit of 313-hrs in a 4-week period that equates to a 78-credit hour Hard Cap. • Another Capping tool at FDX is their 8.5-hr leveler rule (see FDX 25.D.1.b -- page 167 of PDF doc) • The difference between the highest hard line and lowest hard line cannot be greater than 8.5-hrs. Example: IF the lowest line is 69-hrs, you could only build the highest line to 77.5-hrs (69 + 8.5 = 77.5). Sound clip

  5. For those that have asked me to boil it down to as few slides as possible with as little detail as possible, I give you the next several slides. More detailed slides follow that. My research, thoughts and opinions do NOT reflect that of any individual or group; I’m not speaking for anyone. There is no direct or indirect attack of any individual or group by any presentation. On the contrary, I fully support and am thankful for the efforts of our past, present and future EB, NC, volunteers and staff. They can’t be thanked enough for what they do. I also am very grateful and proud to be part of the UPS team. We are all in this together! It’s always been what’s right… not who’s right.

  6. The Good, The Bad & The plain ‘ole UGLY! Intentionally left blank • Junior pilots in every bid package and RESERVE crewmembers in general:Please pay attention, this will affect you most. • Actually, it can affect everyone. • Has the IPA given UPS the ability to build trips to FAR limits after a bid package is constructed…? • Could UPS build to their idea of limits if no FAR limit applies? • Article 13A page 157 (PDF p.152): “(vii) The trip construction rules provided in this article shall only apply to construction of flying lines unless expressly stated to the contrary;” • Trips left in Open-time could be rebuilt/abused by UPS to FAR limits or to UPS imposed limits. • If that’s not what UPS intends, then why would UPS ask for it? • All it would take is UPS’ interpretation to be different than ours. • We’ve been down that path many times already. You know the drill…. “Fly it now & grieve it later. See ya in 6 to 12-months.” • Our last arbitration was around 10-YEARS ago…? • Whatever trips UPS can’t cover during the construction of bid packages could be ripped apart and that portion could be dumped into open-time. Then UPS can rebuild trips to FAR limits (domestically 16-hrs duty, 8-hrs rest, 8-hrs block, etc; international rules can be more ugly yet). • This would be highlighted during summer’s vacation peak, Christmas peak and understaffing situations. • Mixing more day with night could be fair game….. • Basically, almost all of Article 13A could be up for grabs every Bid Period (Duty, rest, circadian issues, leg limits). • FDX currently has a similar rule, BUT it was their 1st contract --and they are negotiating it’s removal now (see next slide)…. This is our 4th contract.

  7. From FDX’s last proposal(Proposals through the course of negotiations have been shared with their pilots, just like at some other Legacy carriers.) Intentionally left blank • As you can see, FDX is making steps to remove loopholes –as we the IPA accept concessionary language. • Do you think this is acceptable for the trades made with our management? • Is this what you consider significant gains in scheduling? • Are WE holding back FDX pilots from advancing or are they slowing us down??? • In this case, it appears we are dragging our FDX brothers & sisters down. • Other airlines, when financially strong & growing, didn’t wait for someone else to lead; they believed enough in themselves and their families to lead. FDX language

  8. Bottom Line In relation to surveys and your schedules, did you want: • significant but reasonable reductions in duty for flying at night --&/or internationally? • significant but reasonable increases to your layovers (rest periods)? • reduced exposure to domestic coast-to-coast flying (8-hr block nights)? • reduced exposure to domestic or international 4-leg nights with long duty periods? • reduced international block-hour and leg limits? • to maintain city purity within a trip (multiple layovers in the same city) –and within a line? • to maintain our circadian purity philosophy (NOT mixing day with night flying in a line or during a trip)? • to not be financially penalized if you commuted into position off-schedule and didn’t meet UPS’ min rest requirement or their qualifiers? • maintain or increase the amount of vacation slots in the summer (a reduction in summer vacation % causes less staffing and upgrade needs for UPS)? • to ensure UPS’ contract compliance by using financial incentives (i.e. premiums, etc.) when abusing loopholes in scheduled duty &/or rest, etc? • to secure a high percentage of true ‘week-on week-off’ flying for late night schedules all year long? • to at least be on par with FDX’s scheduled duty, rest, leg, block-hour, deadheading limits and other circadian/scheduling issues domestically and internationally? • to maintain our contractual right of not allowing system-wide reserve (757 pilots [all bases] most affected – more work with less staffing; Every future multi-domicile fleet will need less pilots overall compared to current operating philosophy)? • to maintain and NOT lessen the strength of our “conflict rules” (This affects vacations and training). • to eliminate any chance of UPS rebuilding trips to FAR limits after the bid packages are built? In real world improvements, we didn’t get these gains or maintain our current contract “pearls” in this TA….

  9. What was derived after looking at all the trips in every fleet and the entire network? • Other than deadhead issues and their associated layovers, the majority of our current trips will not change significantly because of the new rules; the core/heart won’t change much. • There are improvements, but these new rules barely lock in what has being scheduled these last several years (I.e return to 2003 schedules). • The lines may look “cleaner”, but we’ve all heard or experienced a line that looked great on paper, but killed you when flying it. • Please think ‘Outside the Box’ and into the future because UPS is doing just that. • The network and business model you see today is not what you are going to see in the next three years. • UPS is always trying to become more efficient. • They will adjust their business model & network to mitigate increases in costs and staffing created by the new rules. • They’ve already proven they can do that in the last few contracts. • There is no reason they won’t do it again. • They are doing it as we speak (realigning fleets & seats; MENLO, etc.)

  10. More to think about…. • We may want to scrutinize any TA language that produce gainsonly on paper. • What do I mean about gains only on paper? • In other words, does the new language actually change & improve your schedule? HYPOTHETICAL example: • If the current contract required a minimum of 9.5-hrs on every layover and the new contract language requires 12-hrs, you would think we’ve increased the rest dramatically…. a gain… an improvement. • Shortly after the champagne and noise makers, someone points out that UPS normally schedules us with 12-hrs rest ---almost every time; If not more rest. • That gain was really only on paper. • The question that follows should be: What did we give UPS for this “gain”? • NOThypothetical: • Every time we give something to UPS, we have reduced UPS’ need for staffing. • A crumb here a crumb there –and voila! A loaf of bread. • It all adds up and reduces the need to hire and slows down or eliminates upgrades. • This would be even more noticeable if we weren’t growing in almost ALL markets…

  11. Remove emotions, politics and personalities… • Please don’t take anyone’s word on it either way. Read and apply the new language to pairings and lines. • Do you see any significant improvements to the heart of your schedule (not just the DHs & the adjoining L/O)? • How would our new expansion/growth compound or interface with the new rules? • Would new business opportunities compound, exacerbate or compliment the situation? • The ‘UPS Dispatch’ and ‘Link UPS’ state: • “new U.S. zips added for earlier deliveries and at least double digit growth in Europe, Asia and the Americas/Mexico”. • CFO Davis: “Our U.S business is strong and we see great opportunities internationally…” and • CEO Eskew: “Our U.S. domestic volume climbed well above expectations…” • Would some or all of those scheduling improvements be negated with (abbreviated list): • ‘Hub 2000’ efficiency and/or network changes (think Teamster team-drivers and 4-sort result)? • The loss of city purity and/or the migration of flying from one base/fleet to another (ONT to SDF, etc)? • New extended Int’l duty deadhead rules in addition to the normal Int’l & domestic ones? • Double crews and Turns w/IROs (FDX usually more restrictive)? • UPS’ ability to mix day with night flying? (FDX pilot’s build their own lines; Mgt builds pairings) • Reduced vacation slots in the summer? • Unrestrictive block-hour limit (compared to FDX standards)? • Allowing multiple nights with 4-legs (FDX is 3-legs one night followed by 2-legs the following night ; repeat pattern)? • Other new rules (IPA quote: “[WE’ve]...added layers of flexibility in addition to enormous efficiencies they currently enjoy”)? • Unforeseen loopholes or holes created by UPS at a later date? • Reprogramming of UPS’ million dollar scheduling software and usage of the OPTIMIZER feature? • New domestic or international bases and/or the combination of the bullet points above? • UPS creating another sort in a 24-hr day to change everything? • Are the tradeoffs appropriate, a good return on investment, now orin the future? • Is scheduling one of your top priorities?

  12. 0505 and Other Examples • Examples I use are usually from the 0505 bid period. • Why use 0505? • Because that’s what UPS demanded we use for rebuilding bid packages; the IPA agreed and we rebuilt that bid period. • The “xx05” bid period of any year is what UPS considers to be their true PEAK season in regards to vacations, staffing, and schedules for the 757/767 fleet. UPS in turn optimizes our schedules by scheduling more work (stuffers, less rest, more legs, etc). • 0505 is also closer to the 2002 survey, but still favors UPS. • “xx02” (I.e. 0602) is also a restrictive period; especially on the A300. • This raises many issues, but one thing it clearly means is that using the most restrictive bid period is the worst case scenario for UPS. • It would create the largest impact to crews and schedules using new rules. • Other bid periods would have a lesser impact. • In other words, using the most restrictive bid period(s) and applying the results to all bid periods could create an erroneous and exaggerated overall impact. This muddies up the water in relation to staffing, upgrades and other quality of life issues. • This is exactly what UPS has done; thus, a comparison of rebuilt bid packages is not always the best measurement of true gains. Especially since we do not know the future network, including the affect of new flying (Postal contract, etc.) & domiciles. • 2006 bid periods are close to if not the most optimized schedules to date. • Impact is the increase in cost related to changes using the new rules. • Less impact equals less change and cost. Less change may mean less quality of life changes.

  13. Sound clip Proof is in the puddingPercentage impact w/new rules to 0505 pairings is…*13.7% when ALL bid packages (Incl. Open-Time) are combined (*see ALL notes below) Deadheads and the subject…. There are good improvements in regards to most deadheading issues, but nonetheless, these changes do not take care of the core of the trip; that’s when you are in the heat of the battle. Furthermore deadhead issues for international, open-time and reserve pilots have not improved as compared to domestic LINE holders. Although, some of the EB have publicly stated that over 80% of the domestic trips are already built with commercial tickets. Therefore, the figures presented here are hard busts encountered predominantly during the core of the trip. You be the judge of how much additional weight you’d place on deadhead issues. • “Hub 2000” efficiency, a new Asian or ANC base, network changes, new IRO language, lack of city purity, mixing day and night flying, etc will negate some of this impact to UPS (reduce the cost & staffing requirements driven by the new rules). • On some fleets (i.e. Z) the majority of the trips that would be illegal to build, “busts,” were due to the SAME flightrepeatingitself in multiple trips. In other words, when UPS adjusts their network for that one FLIGHT and associated duty period, they will fix a majority of the “busts.” I.e. The Z bid package (EU & Asia theaters) had only 5 flights that affected 32 trips. • Moving flying (“migration”) from ONT to SDF, was the easy fix for almost all of ONT trips that busted. Swapping trips out at a mutual gateway like RFD is another option, while just breaking others in domicile would make them legal. POINT IS that the ONT busted trips moved to SDF; thus, the impact in ONT is misleading –and the overall impact of 13.7% is very conservative. Add the fact that the 747 is a dying fleet & the real overall impact is a single digit figure. of Trips per Bid PKG & Open-Time

  14. Printable copy of previous slide. Proof is in the puddingPercentage impact w/new rules to 0505 pairings is…*13.7% when ALL bid packages (Incl. Open-Time) are combined (*see ALL notes below) Deadheads and the subject…. There are good improvements in regards to most deadheading issues, but nonetheless, these changes do not take care of the core of the trip; that’s when you are in the heat of the battle. Furthermore deadhead issues for international, open-time and reserve pilots have not improved as compared to domestic LINE holders. Although, some of the EB have publicly stated that over 80% of the domestic trips are already built with commercial tickets. Therefore, the figures presented here are hard busts encountered predominantly during the core of the trip. You be the judge of how much additional weight you’d place on deadhead issues. • “Hub 2000” efficiency, a new Asian or ANC base, network changes, new IRO language, lack of city purity, mixing day and night flying, etc will negate some of this impact to UPS (reduce the cost & staffing requirements driven by the new rules). • On some fleets (i.e. Z) the majority of the trips that would be illegal to build, “busts,” were due to the SAME flightrepeatingitself in multiple trips. In other words, when UPS adjusts their network for that one FLIGHT and associated duty period, they will fix a majority of the “busts.” I.e. The Z bid package (EU & Asia theaters) had only 5 flights that affected 32 trips. • Moving flying (“migration”) from ONT to SDF, was the easy fix for almost all of ONT trips that busted. Swapping trips out at a mutual gateway like RFD is another option, while just breaking others in domicile would make them legal. POINT IS that the ONT busted trips moved to SDF; thus, the impact in ONT is misleading –and the overall impact of 13.7% is very conservative. Add the fact that the 747 is a dying fleet & the real overall impact is a single digit figure. of Trips per Bid PKG & Open-Time

  15. What I did not count…MIA 0505 example of the “5-minute rule” that UPS admitted they could tweak their network by. • This rule was agreed to by UPS & the IPA for rebuilding domestic trips DURINGnegotiations. NOT using this rule while rebuilding trips would produce a false impact (more trips would bust). This false impact would create an erroneous increase in cost & an exaggerated increase in crews needed because of the new rules. This in turn would lead to a false sense of security & understanding of how the new rules would affect our lives. I have to give UPS credit for agreeing to such a rule. • I do not know if the rebuilt bid packages adhere to this rule. If not, it will break up more trips; including this one. This 4-leg night is an EDW (NDA) duty period. This duty period exceeds the max EDW scheduled limit of 11-hrs by only 4-minutes. The “5-minute” rule would allow both parties to leave this duty period and the core of this trip alone even though it exceeded a specific EDW rule. In the real world, both parties know that UPS would shave off those 4-minutes. Please note:This trip would require an increased layover rest period on the first layover, but that’s a simple fix that does not alter the heart/core of the trip Or… COULD trips like this be corrected by simply flying out of SDF on SA, then rejoin the 1st half of the trip later &/or be tagged onto another trip out of MIA, SDF &/or ONT? How do you think it could affect your ticket bank?

  16. What I did not count…An example ofwhat I considered an easy fix for UPS • Two Rules apply: • Need 15-hr L/O rest prior to Crossing, and • 18-hrs L/O rest before the operating leg. • The longer rest applies. Crossing #1 PHL - EMA Crossing #2 CGN - SDF • Biggest Problem-Bust: Need a minimum of 18 hours before an operating leg. First layover is only 14:05. • Fix: Need block-in at or before 1320z (1:20pm) in PHL on the first duty period to receive 18-hrs rest. • UPS could easily adjust the commercial flight in the 1st duty period for an earlier arrival. • I found at least 4 commercial flights that would make this trip legal to build (block-in at/before 1:20 pm in PHL). ***As an aside, under the new rules, ‘HNL to SYD’ and ‘CGN to BOM’ are not crossings. ***

  17. (SU20) 00:38 5323 4983 SDF (21) 01:38 CVG (xx) xx:xx CVG (xx) xx:xx LAN (23) 03:55 3:30 21:19 “5-Minute Rule” keeps this legal to build (UPS admittedly can Tweak). No action required. 120:12 32:32 Although an improvement, here is an example of what I did not count as a bust on the 727… CML flights based on Oct. 24 & 28 Pax SKDs Requires at least 18-hrs rest because this is an EDW trip. FIX: SU Flight DL 5323/4983. New Show time of 2038 local domicile time for a 2138 departure. Release at 0410 Zulu on MO -Click ahead to see animation 11:15 BUT… it exceeds 2-segments after the 2-hr TOG trigger… FIX: 11:15 layover in LAN on FR followed by flights NW 650 & 655 on FR afternoon. This creates a release at 20:50 on FR in SDF. 650 655 LAN (16) 20:58 DTW (xx) xx:xx DTW (xx) xx:xx SDF (20) 00:35 SU 4:52 This trip & it’s fix is typical of ALL domestic trips and most bid packages. Please note that with the new commercial flights, this specific trip would be away from base 120:12-hrs (tafb). This increases the credit to 32:32-hrs (originally 26:29-hrs). Week-on/off flying would only create 65:04-hrs credit with a 3.75 Trip Rig. With a 3.6 Trip Rig = 66:48-hrs credit; and with a 3.5 Trip Rig = 68:42-hrs credit. As an aside:When UPS figures out how to drop the credit of this or any other trip below 110-hrs TAFB, they can build this 3-times per PPD and/or mix it with day flying. It could also be 4-leg nights instead of 2-legs. UPS can build them to 8-weeks straight per BP.

  18. What I DIDcount as a bust • This is Trip 331 from the 757 SDF 0505 bid package. • Notice that on the 6th duty period (SA) that a P3 DH is used. I could not find a commercial flight that could easily fix this trip and still use the same crew. Therefore, this may increase the number of crews to cover it.

  19. But wait a minute…. • The changes I made below would remove 2 out of the 5 original NON-positioning legs from this trip. In other words, UPS will reduce staffing increases & domestic commercial gains by simple fixes like this. • What OTHER trips can be adjusted to save adding crews and/or commercial costs (think Teamster Team Driver problem --again)? • That could eliminate or at least strongly reduce the commercial costs for UPS. • Did you notice that I was also able to slightly reduce tafb and credit for this trip? • We may want to ask? • Could UPS simply change/re-arrange the entry and exit points to use the same crew (no increase in staffing)? • In other words, instead of commercialling into the trip on Sunday and exiting (de-positioning) the following Sunday, couldn’t UPS just make you operate on Saturday and rejoin the same trip on Tuesday (click for animation)? Could the Postal or other new contracts create more flying on the weekend or other days not normally flown at UPS? By the way, SUNDAY commercials are NOT mandatory to build. ... & reduce your Ticket bank. NEW331SA NEW Report at (03) 7:28 SDF 0505 (same trip as previous slide) 10:47 SU CML 8686 CML ALB (19) 23:30 MHT (20) 00:15 0:45 MO Layover SU CML 8686 CML ALB (19) 23:30 MHT (20) 00:15 0:45 MO Layover 9:59 FR CML 5373 CML MHT (16) 20:09 DTW (18) 22:43 [ 1:05] 2:04 FR CML 5374 CML DTW (19) 2335 SDF (20) 00:35 Credit 43:02blk 12:17ldgs: 14tafb 161:22 CML flights based on Oct 23rd & 28th Pax SKD. FR CML 5373 CML MHT (16) 20:09 DTW (18) 22:43 [ 1:05] 2:04 FR CML 5374 CML DTW (19) 23:35 SDF (20) 00:35

  20. That leads us to another thought…Not all trips are created equal. • A good number of trips that busted in some bid packages where only effective on one or two days out of the bid period. • That drops the percentage impacted on those bid packages and the system overall. • Example: SDF 757 • Of the 22 trips that busted (hard busts) on the 757 SDF, 11 are only effective on a specific date. Side note: I wrote earlier that “The Z bid package (EU & Asia theaters) had only 5 flights that affected 32 trips.” Of those 32 trips, 20 were effective only1-day out of the bid package.

  21. Numbers can be twisted. That is NOT my intention. • Using only the trips as depicted and NOT counting for occurrences, the SDF 757 bid package had about 13.72% of their trips bust; this is what I presented earlier (Includes Open-Time). • If we DID count the occurrence of each trip and the total number of 757 trips, roughly only 9% of the trips busted. • This INCLUDES Open-Time. • We could apply similar concepts related to busts using block hours, but what gets dropped out and what stays in? I.e. Do we drop all the credit of a 40-hr domestic or 82-hr Int’l trip when only the last 12-hrs is the problem, etc? • Can that last 12-hrs be attached to a shorter trip? • Reference slide # 18… the 757 example (trip 331). Would you drop all 44:39-hrs of credit into the pot? • To be conservative, if we drop ALL the credit associated with those SDF 757 busted trips and the number of times they operate (occurrences), the impact is roughly 16.99%.... This includes Open-Time. • But is that realistic? Would UPS drop the entire trip? • System-wide figures in 0505 (the real impact… Including Open-Time): • 13.7% as published in bid packages & open-time (mentioned above & in slides 13, & 14) • 9.0% based on the number of times they operated (occurrences) • 16.9% based on ALL Block Hours dropped & the number of times they operated • I believe we have to ask ourselves, can trips or duty periods be spliced together when we depart from the “city purity” philosophy or take the other factors I’ve mentioned earlier into account to create new legal trips? In conjunction with that, will trip migration from one fleet &/or base to another compound or help the situation? We’ve already seen that moving ONT flying to SDF in the 0505 rebuilt package reduces the impact and cost to UPS. Most realistic impact??? Again, please don’t take anyone’s word on it either way. Read and apply the new language to pairings and lines. Apply them to OLD trips too… 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, etc. Trust but verify...!

  22. You should also know that… • When one trip busts, it usually needs a different trip that was legal (not touched) to fix the busted trip. As a result, a partial trip may be left over; thus, another trip may be needed to mend the legal trip that was taken apart to fix the busted trip. This situation could repeat itself and snowball until just about everything is affected (increasing the percentage of trips affected by the new rules). • That’s unless UPS decides to dump only the broken trips, or just the busted parts, into open time and then break them apart later after bids are complete. Then depending on interpretation, UPS could rebuild the leftovers to FAR limits and disregard circadian rules, etc per the new TAed 13A language: “13A (vii) The trip construction rules provided in this section shall only apply to bid line construction unless expressly stated to the contrary…” • Again… System-Wide: • Built: There were 1,188 trips in the entire 0505 system & they operated (occurred) 5,039 times. • Busted: There were 163 trips in the entire 0505 system that occurred 454 times. Those trips busted; they would be illegal to build today using the TA’s new rules. • Total system-wide impact is roughly 9.0% • 454 / 5,039 = 9.0% • Again, numbers can be twisted to show change/improvement when the actual number of changes may not be that significant in relation to quality of life issues. Simply, change is not always what it’s cracked up to be. You/we will have to investigate the new rules, apply them to current schedules and weigh the possibilities of ourfuture network/schedules (Teamster Team Driver scenarios).

  23. Safety in scheduling • The only real safety nets are solid rules (duty, rest, block-hr, circadian, etc) with solid limits associated with those rules. • After that, our next best bet is the correct combination of Min Guarantee, Hard Cap (Construction Cap), Rigs (Trip, Duty, MPDP, etc.) and maybe a Soft Cap in addition to the Hard Cap. • Some would even say that the Min Guar, Caps and Rigs are the foundation to good trips and lines, but the devil is in the detail (13A in particular) since UPS owns the network and airplanes. • Since we have not really fixed the Min Guar, Caps or rigs… The devil is all we have left to deal with (the details). • If anyone tells you that UPS cannot tweak their network to negate/beat our rules, remember that a similar statement was made during the 1998 contract negotiations. • That’s when Teamster Team Driving wasn’t even on the radar as it hit us directly between the eyes. • Combined with our unusually HIGH Min Guarantee & Caps, Teamster Team Driving created 3 & 4-weeks of night flying per PPD (stuffers, etc) and negated some safety nets/rules. • This comment is not an attack on the previous team, but a reality of what UPS can & will do to their network to avoid playing by the new rules. UPS WILL negate the impact/cost as much as they can. • "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~George Santayana • SOLID limitsand rules are the only way to avoid changing networks & the Teamster Team Driver scenario again. Also keep in mind . . . • Our vote will affect our families --& influence our schedules for a long time: This TA is longer than some think… • Remember to add at least 2-years in addition to the contract’s length for future negotiations. • Then add that number to the date of signing (DOS) for this new contract. • We will not likely see another TA signed until Dec of 2013; this makes this contract actually 10-years long.

  24. Since many have asked… My personal thoughts… • I believe that most of the 13A scheduling CONCEPTS are sound (EDW rule, Shift rule, Crossing rule, Rest Patterning, etc.), but they usually aren’t strong or limiting enough to make a significant difference: the limits are not correct. This means that your schedules, other than some deadheads, may not improve much now or as the network changes. Most gains will be reduced in about two years. The network will change. • I feel that these limits do not serve the memberships’ best interest, our future, or what I believe to be the group’s bottom line. Even with gains elsewhere, the return on investment to me is poor; but, I’m only 1 of 2,700 voices. • I also believe UPS is capable of providing the work rules and limits we need …and “want” while maintaining flexibility and reasonable staffing levels. Again, our network will change to mitigate the new rules & predictedstaffing increases. • The Good: • Commercial tickets for Domestic only trips (although roughly 80% of DHs already have tickets) • Most philosophies and concepts behind the rules. • The Bad: • The LIMITSwithin the rules and what activates/triggers each rule. • Scheduled jumpseat Matrix (“ P3” on a Dom leg during an Int’l trip is legal & the use of P3s in general). • “Operational Jumpseat Matrix” and the triggers allowing its use. • FDX’s ability to use FDX aircraft to schedule a pilot to DH in an emergency is much different in concept, its rules and its triggers. • The Ugly: • Giving UPS FAR limit capabilities after a bid package is built. • Combine that with the loss of CPT’s authority (either Jumpseat Matrix)….and … ouch! • The Bottom Line: • Even if with gains in other areas, I will vote NO on a TA that have these exact scheduling limits & triggers. • Why? Because living a long and healthy life is important to me: and the ROI (Return On Investment) is poor. • Aren’t you tired of being forced by UPS to sleep on the floor like some vagrant or saddle-tramp? • Aren’t you offended that UPS DEMANDS you show up rested for work, but also demands to get you off the clock as quickly as possible? Reduced rest on the last layover &/or a P3 home saves UPS money via less credit… also reduces staffing & upgrades. • Doesn’t your family hate your Zombie look? Aren’t circadian/rest issues important to you? Does this seem fair? • What trade-offs are OK with you? What is your life’s energy worth? It’s your call.

  25. Other related information(Hang in there… only three more slides to go.)

  26. Net Profit or loss B I L L I O N S * * * 2006 & 2007 data is estimated per “The Value Line” * DAL and NWA data missing for ’06 & ‘07

  27. What the IPA and UPS think of the new scheduling rules… • Our IPA spokesperson in the media (Reuters): • “He [Brian Gaudet] added that the union is pleased with the progress the two sides have made on the scheduling issue.” • Page 12 of the IPA “Highlights” July 2005 document: • “In summary, while the new scheduling article is a significant improvement over the current article….” • UPS • “Fair Proposals” per Rick Barr’s video to shippers, media and you. Article: UPS, pilots wary as mediation round set to end Wed May 25, 2005 07:47 PM ETSAN FRANCISCO, May 25 (Reuters) Do you think this is progress, significantimprovementsorfair…? Are the “gains” worth a 10-yr contract?

  28. The End… for now By the way, UPS has made a NET PROFIT of roughly $500,000 in the time it took you to read this presentation. Good for them/us!!!!!! Another presentation will follow shortly. Knowledge is our strength; unity, our spirit. *** INTERNATIONAL Rules simplified using actual bid package examples ***

More Related