Quote:
Originally Posted by Short Bus Drive
NONE. 
filler.. |
I agree. Sadly it will be manpower neutral. I wish it were a net positive, and we could stop some of the furloughing, but that is not the way PBS is designed. It goes to an average line value that the company shoots for (based on their experience of maximizing pain without getting increased fatigue/sick calls. Then it distributes pairings based on the constraints (floor/Cap/FAR's/contract). The top guys get what they want from what is left. At some point it will start forcing flying either high or low depending on manpower. Example: In April, at #40 in my category it started forcing everyone into 65 hour lines. All lineholders from #40-100 got some iteration of a 65 hour line. What narrowing the gap between the CAP and the floor does is move that forced flying number around; either up or down depending on which value you change. In our case, if the TA passes (it won't if its put up for a vote, btw... I'm the only person I know who is going to vote for it), it will really depend on how many pilots preference to fly less than the 95/89 Cap we have now. I'd be first in line.
While the TA sadly doesn't increase our need for pilots, it doesn't DECREASE it either, which is what most people are saying. It's manpower neutral. What it DOES do is improve the QOL of for those of us who are low level line holders on the 320/300, where the improvements are most needed. Getting rid of the forced 95 hour/11 day off lines would be a good fatigue mitigator.
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
