The company knew the T/A was going to fail, so gateway was added to get the vote over 50%. It could have been something else added, no one knows what that something else was going to be. Obviously, there had been a conversation about gateway during negotiations.

Thanks Cliff for opening up the discussion. I'm definitely in favor of the 14, 16, 18 scheme as well as other ideas posted here. Hopefully after the elections the new leadership will quickly set about getting some meaningful surveys out there and defining what the group is willing to fight for. Until then, great fodder to chew on and banter at the "free" breakfast table.

Thanks for the background, Whaledriver...

I cannot believe that ANY airline management is going to just give away hundreds of thousands of dollars (likely a few million when you factor in airline tickets AND hotels) without anything in return for it. Even if the incentive was to get the vote above 50%.

That also tells me how fixated we were on getting the damn Gateway basing system...sorry, I have always believed that it cost us too much for what it gave us. EVERY single airline of any consequence does not have such a plan. EVERY single pilot at a major/legacy/LCC jumpseats to work. My opinion is that we gave up too much to get this program...and guess what, now that we have it, the program continues to drive the discussion. That tells my how we value it...when a pilot group values something that much, it is hard to get rid of it. And not only that, the company can and will use it against us in EVERY Section 6 we sit down for.

As pilots, we have very short memories. If you'd have asked the pilots their opinion of PBS when we were using it, there was an overwhelming hatred of it. How do I know, I asked. It was amazing when the line bidding was leaked out for this contract. By a ratio of 3 to 1, the majority were glad to be rid of PBS. I warned them of the hazards of line bidding, but they didn't care.

Now fast forward to today, everyone hates line bidding.

The union had a lot of labor in the PBS system, reviewing (scrubbing) the results and many times needing to intervene, and very little was reviewable for the line guy. I agree, easier for the junior guy.

But that Union oversight during the award process is exactly why the process was more transparent and not subject to tampering.

I much preferred the PBS thing, as a junior guy and towards the end as a senior FO.

Uhh, the reason there is no scrubbing is because it is so transparent, nothing for the scheduling committee to scrub. You see what was awarded above you and below you and if you work at it a little, you know what you'll be awarded on the 21st.

Part of the only incentive to stay at Atlas is the no jumpseating to work. I personally have no desire to see that go away. As to PBS, there are pros and cons to line bidding and a PBS system. Neither one is going to make everyone happy. Your other ideas are a decent starting point.

This is very true.

BUT:

We don't use the Legacy operating model.

Legacy guys have to get to their base (hub) on their own. They ALWAYS start and end in the hub. The hubs are in the US. There are lots and lots of domestic flights, on lots of carriers, going to those hub bases. They know when their trips will start, and end, and they can plan their travel to and from their hub bases well in advance.

We start and end trips all over the place. If we had to jumpseat, I would've had to jumpseat to and from Jakarta last year. I don't want to do that. I would've had to jumpseat to and/or from all sorts of international destinations to start and end trips (Taipei, Calgary, London, Riga, Kuwait, Aguas Calientes, Melbourne, Australia, plus a lot of domestic destinations that are hard to get to).

There ARE many airlines with Home Basing, and none of them have a Hub and Spoke model.

There are also aviation organizations with Gateway. Again, non of them operate Hub and Spoke model.

We are the ONLY organization that uses 2 of the 3 systems: We use Bases AND Gateways. This is very stupid. It creates imputed income, and it creates stupid scheduling/pay issues related to where your trip actually starts.

NO ONE has Bases and Home Basing.
NO ONE has Home Basing and Gateway.
We have Bases AND Gateway....a really, really bad idea.

I really, really want Gateway Basing. To get it, it will save the company a LOT of money if we go to International Gateway only...no Pilot Bases. To do that effectively, we need PBS, which I also think is a BIG improvement over Line Bidding, with our structure.

And, why Gateway Basing vs. Home Basing? Gateway Basing is cheaper than Home Basing, and it is almost as good for almost all the pilots. It is cheaper because Home Basing would include a number of very small airports way out in the boonies with very expensive ticket prices, and a lack of service. For example, a fellow Atlas buddy of mine lives in a town with one flight per day in and out. The flights are expensive, and inconvenient.

Yep, the Bid Triangle...oops, forgot about that!! Thanks.

Omni actually has home basing combined with gateway. It's a really bad idea, as well. Even though you'd go to work on Day 1 (rather than a day early), any sort of domestic commercialing to get you into position didn't count toward duty time, pay credit, or per diem. Only international segments counted as deadhead for purposes of the contractual duty time limit. What happened out of that was if you had to commercial from your home (say, in LAX) to Kuwait, they could send you LAX-DFW-ORD-JFK for 16 hours, then start the 20 hour deadhead clock in JFK as you board your flight to KWI in coach. Boom, 36 hour day caused by taking advantage of weak contractual language.

I bring that up because I strongly believe we need a professional team of negotiators for our Atlas CBA in 2016. I've seen how the Teamsters do it, and we need better than a negotiating committee comprised of a couple line pilots and an attorney. We'll get eaten alive if we don't.