Originally Posted by
Captainbfv
You hit the nail on the head. Here's a question that was asked by a pilot to the Presidential candidate of the "Blue Skies Slate", or what I would call the "Not GU 2.0 Slate".
Pilot: "The company is asking for 50% unstacking expandable to 70% (if memory serves). The company has rejected the status quo of CBI. It seems that the mantra of this slate is to not "die on the unstacking Hill". Can you guarantee the pilot group that we will not take concessions on scheduling?"
Presidential Candidate (RJ): "The idea of “not dying on the unstacking hill” doesn’t mean compromise, it means being strategic and realistic. Traditional hub and spoke airlines with multi day pairings typically operate with 15% to 30% unstacking, but Allegiant’s model is very different. Under CBI, we’re effectively at 100% unstacking on the second pass during the solve. Moving to 30% would require the company to hire a large number of additional pilots just to maintain current flying, what’s known as driving heads.
In response, the company’s only viable option would be to increase aircraft utilization with more multi day pairings, which means more overnights and possibly a return of red eye flying. That would fundamentally change the out and back model most of us value. This is taboo to talk about within the union, but it’s the hard truth.
A change of that scale can only come from the pilot group itself, based on clear survey data, not individual opinions or politics. Blue Skies 2025 will protect scheduling, base, and ultimately job security through data and analysis, not emotions or empty rhetoric."
This is the type of information that many don't know or understand because all they've been fed for years is rhetoric, and that what the union is asking is "Industry Standard" therefore it's worth dying on.
Someone is going to have to show that math company or the Blue skies group to show that 30% is not possible. PBS in most cases significantly better at efficiency this is why all the other companies wanted it and their pilot groups did not want it as it meant less pilots for the same flying. If 30% and 50% is less that want anyone else has than that seems very reasonable from this pilot group to allow. Especially if it can be proven that even at 30% PBS is much more efficient than current. Any efficiency from CBI would mean it would require less pilots not more pilots for the same flying. If it was not more efficient than CBI then the company would gladly just keep that. The problem is the company does not like or want any restriction on how they schedule the pilots. They do not care what your quality of life is they just want to fly the most flying with the fewest pilots it is up to all of us as pilots to make sure they understand that we expect the same quality of life at a min as those in or trade and craft. They (the Company) needs to be held accountable and they need to start actually proving these claims of that they can not afford or do these industry standard quality of life and pay that is set in almost everyone else contracts.