Originally Posted by
Car Ramrod
Exactly. I've been here a little over a year. Got called for a JA twice, both were just 4.5 hr turns. Got two conflicts: two days dropped one month and one on another. Of course I bid my schedule based on days off that I want not conflicts. Now that red/green is fixed, it may be possible to get both transition conflicts and the days off you want, especially the more senior u are.
Here's my opinion. Some say "don't give up the conflict". I agree, but it a huge bargaining chip and I'll trade it away for the right $$ amount. To me it's a matter of principal. I want to be paid a fair wage when I do my required duties, then I want to go home. I don't want to have to "tickle the system" or take advantage of the caveats in the contract (like transition conflict) to make extra money. I also think it's ludicrous that people wh**e themselves out for straight time. If I work extra, I should get a premium. Most airlines have a premium pay over a certain hrs of credit and so should we.
Hey Gatorbird-
Above was my original post and below was your reply:
"Great. We're ****ed. Because of your "principles" I guess I'll have to tell my wife and kids goodbye for an additional 5-6 days a month when I usually get a conflict. Bendo will be loving every line he reads if this kind of thing ever makes it to his desk. By bidding transition conflicts I'm doing absolutely nothing outside of the confines of my CBA and I certainly don't feel like my "principles" are compromised; I'm just working within the rules both sides gave me.
But you're telling me you'll give it away just so you don't feel "bad" about it and you want to work for every penny you earn? Tell me, how does that work out for you when you get paid 4 hours a day for an 8 hour day of recurrent? Or when you sit around a hotel for virtually free (due to trip averaging) away from your family?"
Let's look at the "details my friend"
1- at no point I said anything about feeling bad about people getting conflicts.
2- The sentence immediately after I stated "it is a matter of principal", I wrote "I want to be paid a fair wage when I do my required duties, then I want to go home. I don't want to have to "tickle the system" or take advantage of the caveats in the contract (like transition conflict) to make extra money." Maybe I should have put those two sentences together in their own paragraph so it would be easier to understand? Anyways that is what I wrote. That is what I Meant. We should not HAVE (key word is "HAVE") to bid a conflict to make what we are worth. I don't know how I could be any more clear... If you go back and reference your response on p.43, you may notice you left out the word "HAVE" when you originally quoted me. Thats when I knew you didn't comprehend what I was saying.
Ex: "I don't want to HAVE to bid a conflict to make extra money"
-vs-
"I don't want to bid a conflict to make extra money"
Those sentences kinda have a different meaning don't they?...
Then I further explained in a later post (a reply you said you "agree wholeheartedly" with) what I meant with an example where I said: "What is the conflict language worth? If you get 5 days off in transition and end up with a 21 day off line that pays you $10k for the month. What difference would it be if you were able to just flat out drop that trip and still have 21 days off and still make $10k for the month? Point is: you CAN put a $ amount on the conflict language". This example does not contradict with what I originally wrote.