Yes, I have a solution...Don't fly DP's.

It's a very simple solution for an imperfect process.

Yah, you get to vote. Your choices are:

[ ] I choose to be part of the current solution.(Won't pick up DP's)
Or,
[ ] I choose to be part of the current problem.(Will pick up DP's)

There is no grey area, in this.

 

You should put that on a pillow and sell it in the AOC. Yes, do not fly DPs to 100%. Will our pairings improve? One, no because 100% is obviously not supported by the crew force, even in ANC. Two, our pairings are not controlled by the DP process, they are controlled contractual scheduling parameters. Our current setup is largely based on the SIGs opinion of pairings presented to them. They do a great job with the hand they are dealt.

All I'm attempting to get across on this thread is that our SIG should be at the table or at least in the second row during the next contract talks. It could then be in black and white what scheduling parameters we are willing to accept on those three leg O&Bs, body-clock swaps, VTOs, etc. Pairings either comply or they don't. Our then Scheduling Enforcement Group (SEG), can stop those pairings from ever being presented to the crew force--100%

 

I just flew with EE (102/17APR). I'll send him an email.

Haz

 

Our new NC Chair is FE. He used to be the SIG Vice Chair. Meet him, ask him questions and you decide whether scheduling issues will have a front row, second row or no row in the next round.

Many of you have noted our stated priorities are similar to last time. They can and may change as we take some upcoming polls. The NC Chair, like every union guy, is bound by some parameters like polls. But one huge difference is our leadership, the NC Chair. Whatever the stated priorities are, a person still has to wield them at the negotiating table. Who we have there makes a huge difference.

The Negotiating process seems to be a lot like the DP process. While the PSIT takes our DP's out of the bid pack we are polled every month on whether they are suitable to dispute. If not they get put into lines. If they are generally avoided, they are usually changed. This process is not always quick or dramatic. Especially now that manning is "healthy". Even when we lose on a dispute, the overall support of the membership is noted by the company. If we MOSTLY avoid DPs something will change now or in subsequent pairings. The company can tell if it is only a small group I'll call "friends of the DP" doing all the DPs. They know if we are pushed as a group these "DPers" can't do enough to override the tide of a generally cohesive pilot group. Even if the cohesion is only in the FO seat as the CA's feast on DPs. This will be particularly effective as manning gets leaner and we get more serious about our scheduling (at contract time or possibly sooner)

 

I've not met FE yet. I will pick his brain when I do get the opportunity. THX.

 

You can't say the above...And follow it with the below.

Please call Ingalls and ask him, "If the DP's were not flown, would our pairings improve and the bidpacks be better?" I have.

We all agree that the current process is lacking, to say the least. But, it's all we have right now. And, it's certainly doomed to fail if we can't follow the SIG's lead. And those that don't follow the SIG's lead should know that they are actively working against the entire group's quality of life.

 

I've not talked to Ingalls, I'll call him. Answer me this, does the SIG build pairings? Or do they take pairings built by the company and either create lines from them leaving XX% open and dispute the ones in question? I could be wrong. Dude, I think we are on the same page possibly, but I think we need to work this water at the source rather than downstream. 100% compliance is a little easier at the source.

 

SIG don't build pairings. Company do. As I'm sure you know.

I agree on working it at the source. But, it ain't possible with our current CBA. So, rather than pizz in the water...all we can do is work within that.

 

What about this other clown?

 

I was hoping someone knew him. I just sent the other an email, we'll see what happens.