If the Company "shorts" the 767 total pilots and the SCH ratio requires additional R24 lines be built that pay WB then what advantage (pay wise) would it be for them to have to build twice as many reserve lines than they would if they simply meet the manning ratio on the front end by having enough 767 pilots?

If the ration calls for say 50 crews and the Company decides to go with the 2 reserve line concept and only award 42, then they need to pay 8 extra pilots 100% WB for the extra reserve lines (8 *2) so it does not seem advantageous to short the 767 side of the equation. I realize they are not being paid "year round" at WB, but it does not take many extra WB pay lines to start to eat into and perceived gain by playing the short game in the 767 ?

 

If they are buying up lines in both 757 and 767 they do not have to build those R24 lines as a penalty. They could just build one 67:59 line for each plane and be "buying up lines". And right now 5 of 9 bidpacks have lines bought up.

HUGE LOOPHOLE.
Very concessionary for guys on Reserve.

 

I apologize if I'm not being clear on this and I'm not really sure I can make my point without a beer, a napkin and a hotel pen.

The ratio is bid pack credit hours vs pilots. Every pilot gets roughly the same number of credit hours per month (average). If you have 720 hours of flying in a 767 bid month, you'll need, on average, 10 crews. So, if you have 720 hours of 767 flying available and have 10 crews, you're ratio will pretty much match the 757. They will never have to pay the penalty R24 line.

If all but the CBA mandated 2 (count 'em - 2) reserve lines are moved to the 757 bid pack, it won't count against the 767 or their ratios. All the ratio crap is just eye-wash to placate the "they'll under man the 767" crowd. The company isn't going to pay guys to sit around doing nothing at WB pay, they'll pay people for flying it. And with this LOA, they'll be paying NB rates for WB reserve coverage.

I predict it will pass by 68%... I mean, who really cares if they use 757 guys to stand combined 75/76 reserve periods. After all, if they get assigned a 76 trip, they'll get 76 pay, right? And that's a good thing! Unless, of course, they decide that rather than actually increase the paycheck of the reserve guy who flies a 76 trip on reserve, they just use an additive to recalculate his leveling, plussing it up a little. After all, reserve pay is set, so they're actually getting a good deal, right? So they actually ARE getting paid for the 76 trip they flew, they just won't see it in their paycheck. Show me where this can't happen in this LOA. And remember, this is forever and ever because we never look back and spend capital revamping LOAs.

Now, about those imaginary gauge changes and substitutions for when they drop the 767 into Grand Forks. That's what we've got to worry about! Because there will be such commonality in the city pairs, that can happen all the time!

Or we just wait, let those who bid it fly it at WB pay (a given) and then work out the kinks in a calm, well thought out manner based on operating experience during the negotiation process. Nah, that doesn't make any sense at all and I'm being selfish!

 

^^^This, plus what av8rmike is posting, are very important issues and questions we should get answered during the upcoming presentations from our union reps.

Good discussion going on here.

Without this thread, the truth is, I was quite happy with my interpretation of the first reading of the LOA. After re-reading it because of this thread, I am not so sure I will be voting for it. That is of course, dependent on the answers to the above questions -- as I am certain that my interpretation of the LOA is not 100% accurate.

 

There were 87 Reserve Capt lines on the MD-11 in April and 82 F/O lines. Imagine if they were able to be held by NB guys as the 767 will be (minus 2 CBA rqrd WB reserves). That's 85 fewer WB Capt seats filled and 80 fewer WB F/O positions. Would that be a positive or a negative? But I'm being selfish because there might be a sub trip not paid correctly if we just wait and let contract negotiations happen... Even though anyone who bids it will get paid WB if they fly it. But I think it's ok to sacrifice WB seats in the future to protect guys who would bid an airplane with pay rates guaranteed, but everything else up in the air.

Other pilot groups have dealt with this situation as a Union should - no one bid it. But not us! We'll gladly give up WB seats to protect guys who will bid it no matter what or guys who WANT to bid it, but don't want the potential, occasional NB pay hickey. We are pathetic.

 

We can't not bid it. It can be assigned in reverse seniority. This is not United in the eighties. I'm tired of hearing that. THE PLANE WILL BE STAFFED.

 

Yes, we can not bid it. Huzzah for your defeatist mentality. Who CARES if it will be staffed? I think accepting a LOA that gives up WB seats is a bad idea. Apparently you don't.

 

It is not really a defeatist attitude, it is realistic in my opinion. If you are a 757 pilot are you going to just "refuse" to show up for differences training should this deal fall through? You see the plane is ALREADY staffed with all the pilots who are fully qualified to fly the jet, save a couple of dif sims

 

We'll see about the reserve issue. I'll let cooler heads prevail and get more information from the MEC and NC before making a conclusion.

For all the supposed problems you see, you really don't propose a more lucrative solution. Let the company fly it awhile so we can negotiate changes later? Really? I have no clue why you want to prevent a guarantee of 767 pay for those in a separate bidpack. This would maximize the amount of widebody pay.

They could still shift the way they schedule the 767 flying after we have been doing it awhile and negotiate on your time table. In fact you point out we would have to deal with the company cheating us for a time before you want to negotiate the 767 flying. Following your plan would cost many of us a lot money.

You give no good justification for waiting and have an unusual faith in arbitration to fix problems we could head off now.

 

This makes sense.