View Single Post
Old 07-03-2018, 04:45 AM
  #17  
PastV1by10
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 96
Default

Originally Posted by SaltyDog View Post
Without OCV, most assuredly the reserve lines would be higher right now. OCV coupled with unplanned UPS growth has caused UPS to be short staffed.
Article 13.1.B.1, didn't change in this latest contract "Minimum reserve staffing by status and equipment in each domicile will be at
least ten percent (10%), rounded to the next higher whole number."

UPS does carry this minimum of Reserves to scheduled lines. When UPS had excess pilots, they carried extra reserves (up to 22%) for years. When they are short pilots, they only have contractual reserves. Its not a mystery UPS is very short of pilots. So less reserve lines. How is this "current"IPA fault? Hasn't changed since the first contract. So are you blaming the first contract voters? IPA attempted to raise to 20% in this past negotiation. OCV certainly contributed as mentioned to shortfalls of available pilots, thus contractual reserve staffing and no more (pilots not around anyway yet).
Some argue that means more JA money to those inclined and this a better deal for some. Some fleets and seats reserves are not used all that much while a few others are working every or most every day.
You assign blame to the union when all airlines unions are handicapped by advantages provided to corporations explicitly by the RLA. The Arbitrator sets the verdict. IPA can and does ask for far more, however, the law doesn't provide for damages, just costs.
IPA could have asked for only MD crews and 75/76 crews to receive the payout and it would have been more substantial (just like those who bid the recovery lines on reserve). However, the choice was to allow all IPA pilots to receive a share of the awarded cost of doing the business according to the Arbitrator decision. I'm guessing some senior MD and 75/76 crews would have been OK with the few take the pie option. Alas, 2700+ IPA pilots will share the award. Certainly makes it less, but blame RLA and Arbitration for final verdict shortfalls.
So your saying the contract in it’s current form didn’t provide any consessions to reduce the number of reserve lines? The shiftable and reserve extensions didn’t provide any flexibility to the company to be able to reduce the 22% number? Come on man even the average line slug getting abused can see that.
PastV1by10 is offline