I understand your argument. See above for the ridiculous amount of open time argument. Secondly many lineholders would prefer lower line values. Let's see what happens when the low line option gets implemented in PBS.

Those two things should create more lineholders and fewer reserves without changing staffing levels. It might even require a few more since a reserve can be assigned more days of flying than the average lineholder.

Lower line values, less reserve staffing, more use of premium to cover the gap when the reserves get used up….sounds like whichever air line that did that could make some serious money.

Yes this is true, I've watched a trip in OT fall to me when its been held open for an hour while others are legal for it and gotten the call the minute my RAP started (old system). Conversely, I've seen a trip pop open when I've had 20-30 minutes left of legality and seen it go to the oncoming RAP pilot a half hour later. This is just the nature of SC... But what would we have them do? Generally we want trips to stay in OT for longer so line holders have a shot at them and a reserve won't get it at all, right? For every pilot who gets burned by this tactic, another gets a day off.

To be the pilot who DIDN'T get the trip and instead got to spend your last day (or two) of the block unused and then be on here complaining about it...that might be the most APC complaint ever.

What exactly is the “low line” and when is it scheduled to be implemented?
thanks

Whilst I agree with almost every point above I am not sure whether you actually end up getting 'better trips'. Even as a relatively junior lineholder, you have almost unlimited flexibility to drop/trade trips to your liking (off-season that is).

The PBS 'package' is scheduled by 4Q26? It will include the ability to bid low, normal or high (instead of playing the credit window guessing game) and will implement split duty trips. I think it will include some other things too, although it is all dependent on the PBS vendor confirming they can actually implement the features.

If you look at the CBA implementation timeline it's pretty much the last thing.

Welcome to AA.

Yes. I want this. Full stop.

Not everything in life is about squeezing every dollar imaginable out of AA. Flying more spread out with a lower LCW is more flexibility. At the end of the day if you want to work more you can just pick something up. If you want to work less thats not always an option on months that are locked down.

I don't care about pilots that don't currently work at AA. I want the best for pilots that are here right now. APA's(and your) historical stance on "increasing jobs at AA is good for us" is what has led to where we are. It's a failed philosophy.

No kidding. If i do 80h as an FO mandatory with 15 days off.

Or upgrade CA and do 50h with 20 days off and make the same. That's a no brainer. I dont need the extra $10k a month to be stuck with more days on with upgrading.

Increasing jobs at AA is objectively good for us. I really don't see how it's even a debate to be honest. Would you rather be 8,000 out of 15,000 or 8,000 out of 20,000? That's more seniority, better schedule flexibility and more of a buffer between you and the furlough line.

APA's position is valid but self serving. More members means more dues. I don't necessarily like it but it does mean we get better representation and it also doesn't mean we have to disagree with them just because their motivations are different. It doesn't change the fact that more pilots at American is better for current AA pilots.