Originally Posted by
BeatNavy
I'm not hung up on anything, nor am I looking at it from a standpoint of what I want personally...but yeah, what I think is easier for the company is part of (well really the whole crux of) the discussion, as I see it as a lose-lose, hence why I am asking for an explanation on how an annual bid (and supplementals) helps the company and/or the pilot group vice quarterly (or other more frequent) bids. I get that the vac awards are predicated on the annual bid right before the vac bid. But I don't see your scenario of bidding FO vacation then upgrading being worse for staffing than having a big annual bid with random supp bids (also with up to year out effective dates) throwing a wrench into the previous annual bid. The way it is, people could game the system knowing a supp will most likely come out between now and next August, stay FO on this annual, get FO summer vacation, then throw CA in on the supplemental. I just don't see a lot of people making CA vs FO bid decisions based on one year of awarded vacation. But again maybe I'm missing something.
Just curious, what is the industry norm for system bids? Does any other airline have an annual system bid in August projecting vacancies for the entire following calendar year? I'm not aware of any that do. Perhaps there is a reason for that? I just see it, from my standpoint, as yet another contrarian thing with no good reasoning behind it and with no benefit to either the pilot group or the company.
I agree with you that the annual bid will be a lose-lose scenario. Hell, neither the company nor the union can tell us how it’s going to work, and it’s right around the corner.
So what happens if I bid for a new aircraft & base, but it’s not available to me in August, but 5 months later, there is a need for that acft and base. Does my August bid stand? Can the company assign it to a NH (shouldn’t be able to, until everyone on property has a chance to get it). How will they fill it, without a supplemental bid?
Think about it like there will be no supplemental bids (far-fetched, I know, but bear with me a minute). Can the company predict who, what, and where they will need every pilot for the next year? I just cannot see them being able to do that. Attrition alone would prevent it, and we don’t really have much attrition here.
The concept of trying to forecast pilots for a year out is beyond the ability of JB, IMO. And probably ANY airline. Why not just have bids every two months? If a pilot who is bidding a new base comes over with a vacation date that conflicts with the current base dynamic of leaves assigned, then said pilot just has to adjust that vacation, or give up his bid. Many different ways to skin this cat, but I think less bid cycles will make things worse. More may not be much better, but better than one bid cycle. 6-12 bids a year would allow more flexibility and put people where they want to be (read: happier employees) sooner.
And to add to your examples above, what if Pilot Yeager bids for an aircraft swap into base XYZ. Base is available in August, but not acft. So pilot is denied the swap. But the following month, 3 pilots in that new acft and base quit, leaving holes. Does Pilot Yeager now get to fill one of those holes automatically? Or does (s)he have to wait until the next annual (11 months out) or supplemental bid (assuming one happens)?
Too many unknowns. And I’m not saying this annual bid WILL be worse for us, but I certainly do not see how it can be better for either JB or the group.