Originally Posted by
Sink r8
Probably a better, and more comprehensive argument than what I formulated above, but I find it very difficult to take the 1.5>80 calmly. Every change to a contract is designed to reward/incentivize or discourage certain behaviors and actions. This one is such a grotesque, obvious attempt to pull the blanket one way, it reminds me of the Age 65 argument.
On the surface, there is a certain appeal to the simple argument "1.5>80", especially when guys are jealous about pilots getting GS (which are designed to reward an exception). That's about it. Once you start scratching the veneer, this is obviously a attempted robbery.
So if an hourly worker works 40 hours a week in a factory, and his supervisor asks him if he would like to work 50 hours the next week, are you saying that he should NOT want to get 1.5x overtime pay, and in fact SHOULD want to work those extra 10 hours at straight pay, all for some philosophical "greater good?"
I don't get it. And yet that is exactly your stance when you oppose automatic premium pay over a certain threshold (80, 75, or whatever).
How about this? You get a schedule. If you fly over some trigger for WHATEVER reason (WS, swap, reroute, weather delay) all time above that is considered overtime, and you get premium pay for it. I don't get why you would oppose that, unless it is some marxist economic approach.
This isn't about "whoring" or whatever pejorative term you can think up, it is about rewarding overtime work. Not everyone is trying to fly 100+ hours (I sure am not). But if I am scheduled to fly 80 hours, and I swap an inefficient, low-time trip (30 hour layover, anyone?) for another, higher-time trip that spans the same days--and that puts me up to 84 hours, why would you oppose my getting premium pay for those last four hours? It makes ZERO sense.