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.

If we had the 10 hr+ rig that Delta has my last 4 day would have paid 25 hours. Not 22. I'll happily take the extra $1000+. But APA knows best and we're all just idiots. I'm on reserve so maybe it wouldn't help me, but it would help the 1000s of line holders.

also an obvious change in a vacuum after the fact sounds great. But if we had Delta's rig, would that 4 day have been constructed the same?

We used to have three-day trips that had late dept on first day and red-eye back to base. Paid 10:30 IIRC. Junior folks ended up doing 2x a week for 5 days on every week. When calendar day popped up everyone thought they'd go senior and pay 15:45 each or 31:30 for the double up.

Guess what happened? They disappeared and got embedded into trips afterwards.

Same will happen to 10 hour days, you'll just end up working more days on. Everyone thinks they can outsmart the company, typical pilot mentality "I know everything". No, you don't know what you don't know. So yes, in this case you are the idiot.

I guess as a plus reserve will go senior and all the juniors can have the crappy lines lol. So, win?

Is that how it happened at widget?

Yes, they have significantly more 4-5 day trips and fewer 2-3 day trips. So the next stage of the food fight is between those who argue 1 more day off per bid period on average is worth flying longer sequences and those who live in base and hate longer sequences enough that they would rather work an extra day to have more nights at home.

I think it's pretty much at an impasse because the split between the two camps is roughly even and leadership is decidedly on the side of status quo.

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.

How can you work more days when a vast majority of our pairings are min day times the number of days plus a few minutes?

I made this exact point later in the post. We allegedly have industry best trip construction limitations and were told during negotiations/road shows that the company was pretty much already operating on the razor's edge of those limitations. APA said we weren't necessarily going to gain much but it will protect from later abuse.

If they are already operating right at the limitations how are they just going to add more days? They can't................Right?

If they can't add more days the optimizer will be fighting with itself between ACD and >10. This is what we want. That all relies on the fact that APA wasn't blowing smoke up our ### during section 6.

Yes and I disagree with your take on "excess" reserves. Lowering the LCWs will absolutely add more lineholders by spreading the same amount of block hours over more pilots and reduce reserve staffing. This is the same argument I had with APA during covid when we were trying to avoid being the only legacy to furlough. I was told it "had tentacles in too many parts of the contract." What they meant to say was "IMAXers will be angry with a lower window."

With that lower LCW if you want to work more its a few clicks away as long as they leave VMAX at historical levels. If you want to work less you already are, based on less hours awarded in PBS.

I wasn't calling you Mr APA. It was a hypothetical conversation that I apparently didn't articulate very well.