Originally Posted by
ACEssXfer
Sure. Stated in a complete vacuum more pilots would be better. That's not how it works though. We are, and historically have been, a step behind DAL/UAL in terms of comp/contract. THAT is objectively true. APA is willing to accept less in order to bring more pilots on property. That hurts pilots already on property the same way operating at 35-40% reserve staffing does
This is a one off item and doesn't paint the full picture but in my bid status for August 58% of sequences contain duty periods >10hrs. These are the types of items(there's another thread going right now on JV scope) we always miss out on in order to preserve things like IMAX "iT's A jObS pRoGrAm". Why are we always missing the ball on stuff like this? APA makes up talking points in order to mask negotiating deficiency or maintain "pet" contract items. "We need to see how this provision would affect sequence construction." Why is that Mr. APA man? You just told me we had industry leading trip construction limits.
Flexibility is a fight that hopefully will be fought in 2027 but the way APA skirted around the issue in 2023 doesn't give me warm fuzzies.
The original argument was that having "excess" reserves means less lineholders, which isn't true. To say I am "Mr. APA" is a joke. I even said it's essentially a coincidence that I agree with them on this but don't like their motivations. Doesn't mean I'm going to advocate for something against my own interests out of spite for the union.
And I have specifically criticized APA for the the lack of 10-hour duty rig. You can check my post history; it'll be right there.