Originally Posted by
Cogf16
I know I'll get pilloried for this, but is it fair that we use negotiating capital for the LCA bidding rule that ONLY benefits a few hundred senior F/O's? Think about it dispassionately. Is it "fair" that senior F/O's can "bid LCA" lines month after month and stay home and or bid GS and we all "pay" for it? And massive training won't stop for years. That is a windfall for a small % of pilots that might not warrant such emphasis. Philosophically, I see the company's perspective and in light of the industry average on this (apparently UAL and AA are the same as the TA language or worse) how can we make this such an important issue. Call me selfish, but now after the failure, I don't see this issue as a must retain item. Fire away.
While you are correct, the simple fact is we already gave something of significant value up to get this. You are right in that a handful of guys getting full salary to never fly and/or rocking triple time to fly as much as everyone else is low hanging fruit. But if they want it back, IMO, they can have it back, however it will cost the following:
Iron clad recovery protections. Not one minute earlier report, not one minute later release, if original rotation had no red eyes or MED etc then the recovery can't either, etc. Credit pays the greater of the two on a daily basis. They only get one bite at the apple: lose a 4 day and they can't give you four one days, etc. One pairing, period. They have to let you know by 3PM the day prior, and you get PS to work if you need it. If your recovery trip leaves you stranded in domicile then you get a company paid for room.
There's probably more protections needed as well.
Even that would be a concession over current book though. It isn't just about the few "triple timers" but about the jobs. Giving up our current book for either trip pulls or recovery costs jobs, period. However trip pulls are, by far, the worse option as they negatively effect nearly 100% of the FO's, or 75% under the best case labratory scenarios in any case.
Therefore we would need job gains to offset or exceed the job losses caused from this. One way would be vacation. First of all 3:30 isn't enough. Secondly 15 minutes of that being pay no credit is not enough. Our vacation needs to be improved, pay and credit, independant of this issue. Then improved some more to offset or exceed the jobs lost from changing from trip drops back to recovery with superior protections. That way we all benefit from the positive changes and its job neutral to positive.
The solution in POS15 was just over reaching and ridiculous.