Originally Posted by
ORDinary
Assuming we would end up with one of the good versions of PBS agreements is unrealistic. Also comparing mainline QoL to ours is a joke, right? You really think the reason mainline DAL, UAL, and AA all have better QoL than envoy is because of their PBS??? Come on.
Yes there are hundreds of versions, but we already have an idea of what it would be like for us......
http://eagle.alpa.org/LinkClick.aspx...%3d&tabid=6677 Pilots had no control over the pairings. If you don't think that old agreement would be a starting point I think maybe you don't realize who we are dealing with here. They do not negotiate in good faith. And this is zero sum: anything about our scheduling that is saving the company money is costing us.
DTS and transition conflict pay would be lost with PBS. Currently anyone with 3 weeks vacation can turn it into 6 or 7 weeks off. And anyone with a transition conflict can get paid twice for a day or two of work. Giving these up are concessions.
Begging forgiveness for my ignorance, but isn’t this mathematically not quite correct?
The flights and times are what they are. The company pays for those. Thus, the company doesn’t gain with PBS from a pay for hours flown perspective.
Pilots who “use” the system, albeit following the contract, are the ones who would lose. As you describe ... and by reduced overtime opportunities and likely critical coverage opportunities. There would also be fewer opportunities to “sit reserve” and then grab overtime on their days off.
However, other pilots, especially junior seniority pilots, would gain because they would get lines, have less reserve, and commute for no reason less often. Aren’t those all things that are complained out a LOT here on this forum?
So, it seems that PBS would “spread the wealth” across the flock of pilots whilst reducing overtime and other costs for the company.
Am I missing something?