cactusmike

The issue has been the implementation of the JCBA scheduling processes. Crew scheduling has been using a half assed system because Sabre has not been programmed to what the JCBA required for assignments. Everything that’s in the AIP was approved in the JCBA. What we need to see is progress towards implementing the programming changes. Then we can look at how scheduling is handling this and take that info into section 6 next year and see changes made.

This isn’t a perfect agreement but I’m happy to see gains in any area made outside of the section 6 process. The more we have going in the less we have to negotiate starting in 2019.

sumwherelse

Everything that’s in the AIP was approved in the JCBA.

This is absolutely 100% false.

viper548

I think we are better off with the reserve system we are using now. The JCBA system spreads out the flying more evenly and make reserve not as good a deal for someone with seniority. Being senior and able to pass on trips is a good deal.

jcountry

This AIP isn’t all negative, but once the company fails to implement min day, it will lose what luster it has

Saabs

The current LAA system by assigning by group and not days of availability seems less efficient use of reserves. That’s good for us right? As in requires more reserves?

sailingfun

Delta has had a 5:15 ACD for several years dating back to prior to the last contract.

mainlineAF

I know. I was responding that some regionals have a true min calendar day but it’s low, around 3 hours.

My other point was that 5:15 ACD combined with the sit time rig and the night rig are industry leading at AA. DL/UA do not have all 3.

aa73

The company will not fail to implement ACD. I really don’t know where or why this is always brought up, but it’s yet another FUD grenade. Forget the monetary penalty, that’s chump change: the company knows that if they fail to implement a big QOL item such as ACD that is also contractual, the operation will fall apart. Just like it did when they tried to stick us with the 1013 term sheet. That’s not how these guys roll.

And let’s look at recent past items they have promised and implemented... some weren’t even contractual:

- A1 back to base
- profit sharing
- the increase from 5 to 5:10 average duty period

They could have not implemented these items, but they did. ACD will be no different.

Renember, this deal was also brokered under a trial balloon of trust between both parties. The company not implementing a major component of that deal would be a major slap in the face to the union and an immediate shattering of that trust with major labor disruption consequences to the company. Not to mention discord with Wall Street and share price. They just won’t go down that road.

sumwherelse

The company will not fail to implement ACD. I really don’t know where or why this is always brought up, but it’s yet another FUD grenade.

Because they have done such an excellent job of implementing everything else in our contract?? Pay attention.

aa73

There are some areas that haven’t been implemented, and others that have. Those that have tend to be the big hitter items that would cause labor discord if not implemented. ACD is one of those.

I am not giving management a pass on their past actions but rather using common sense along with trying to figure out their play book. This deal having been brokered out of trust, along with the labor discord that would follow, I can’t see them not implementing ACD. Like I said, FUD grenade.