|
Originally Posted by Banzai
(Post 2667179)
The lookback on sick leave is confusing, and I think deliberately so.
When you have a cold, but you don’t want to figure out if you need to verify, or if it will put you into the verification window, and you don’t really think it’s worth a trip to the doctor for something some sleep and chicken soup will cure. You probably shouldn’t work, but you know you can function. So, you just decide to go work, to avoid hassle either now or later. I think it’s been pretty well designed for that. 100 hours without verification in the previous 12 months. The current look back is posted to the minute on icrew. If you have used 99:59 hours and call out sick for a 32 hour 5-day trip, you still don’t have to verify even though you’re at 131:59. If following that sick call the next week you decide to call out sick you need to verify. |
Originally Posted by Express pilot
(Post 2666716)
1hr of pay for SC assignment. Example. If you get 77 hrs of pay for reserve and CS gives you 3 SC assignment. You get 80 hrs of pay. You still get paid if CS gives you a trip while on SC. SC assignment gives you 1 hr of pay over the reserve guarantee.
We get 3 company paid hotels for SC or line holders a month. If you need a airport hotel 3 times a month, you are on the company dime. Vacation: keep what we got, we get trip touching. If not, we get a extra week. So why didn't I see any of these ideas in the survey??. That was a biased survey because it only asked about a few narrow areas of the contract, with a huge emphasis on "don't you think a DB plan would be great?! ". I will vote for improving SC long before I vote to be on the hook for a DB plan that I'll likely never see myself. I already contribute plenty to social security that similarly will likely never last for my retirement. |
Originally Posted by TCMC17RES
(Post 2667240)
This!
So why didn't I see any of these ideas in the survey??. That was a biased survey because it only asked about a few narrow areas of the contract, with a huge emphasis on "don't you think a DB plan would be great?! " |
Originally Posted by TCMC17RES
(Post 2667240)
This!
So why didn't I see any of these ideas in the survey??. That was a biased survey because it only asked about a few narrow areas of the contract, with a huge emphasis on "don't you think a DB plan would be great?! ". I will vote for improving SC long before I vote to be on the hook for a DB plan that I'll likely never see myself. I already contribute plenty to social security that similarly will likely never last for my retirement. This was the retirement and insurance survey. |
Originally Posted by PassportPlump
(Post 2667197)
It’s quite simple actually.
100 hours without verification in the previous 12 months. The current look back is posted to the minute on icrew. If you have used 99:59 hours and call out sick for a 32 hour 5-day trip, you still don’t have to verify even though you’re at 131:59. If following that sick call the next week you decide to call out sick you need to verify. Case in point, I wouldn't be required to verify in your example because in the previous two years, I didn't use more than 50 hours. As you might imagine, I'm okay with the increased complexity that particular carve-out creates since it could completely absolve me of verifying some future sick event that uses all of my allocated sick leave. Also, if that "next week" portion of your example causes a 33-hour sick event to fall off the front of a pilot's 12-bid-month lookback, the pilot still wouldn't need to verify. Your example also doesn't touch on the 160-hour threshold, previously verified events, partial trip sick-out, sick status declared after reserve trip assignment, (certain) bone breakage, etc... We've got a pretty bright group of pilots...if some of them believe our sick policy to be overly complex, I don't begrudge them for it. |
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
(Post 2667196)
One of the big issues that they eliminated was pilots calling in sick to create enough overhead in block hours flown to be able to turn around and then pick up a green slip. Especially during the usually " critically manned" summer months!!!!!!. Naw. Nobody would ever do that, we are professional pilots, by God, with the highest standards..... Right, the company wastes negotiating capital jousting at Quiotiesque windmills....how dare I insinuate that anyone would do anything unethical or for reasons that line their pockets......???????
Well, not now since you go to the bottom of the list for GS.... unless of course you happen to be an A350 capt where they are giving out GSWC As far as the handling of sick and how it affects GS assignment... I talked to a 350 pilot who was told by a scheduler that he "went to the bottom of the list for 30 days after sicking out of a trip". Kind of scary to think schedulers can have that level of misunderstanding about our contract. I think/hope they don't manually create the GS list, though, so that person's misunderstanding hopefully doesn't actually affect anyone. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2667302)
You do understand they are breaking the survey up into sections and will get to scheduling in another survey. Right?
This was the retirement and insurance survey. |
Originally Posted by TED74
(Post 2667306)
I haven't encountered many pilots who think the GS re:sick event change in the last contract was necessarily bad. I'm fine with it myself.
As far as the handling of sick and how it affects GS assignment... I talked to a 350 pilot who was told by a scheduler that he "went to the bottom of the list for 30 days after sicking out of a trip". Kind of scary to think schedulers can have that level of misunderstanding about our contract. I think/hope they don't manually create the GS list, though, so that person's misunderstanding hopefully doesn't actually affect anyone. |
Originally Posted by Han Solo
(Post 2667313)
I'm not wholly familiar with the new sl/gs provision in the PWA. Does it basically state that you're last in line for a GS during the footprint of any trip that gets dropped due to sicking out?
I agree with just about all the comments previously about voluntary verification for things other than a broken bone etc, but I have a hard time getting fired up over somebody not getting a GS that they would not have been awarded in the first place. Great it we change it, but not a priority for me. |
Originally Posted by RonRicco
(Post 2667324)
No. Assume you are sick for a 4 day trip and then on day 5 you are well. Day 5 you attempt to GS a 4 day, it will send you to the bottom of the list if you would have been illegal for the GS if you had actually flown the trip.
I agree with just about all the comments previously about voluntary verification for things other than a broken bone etc, but I have a hard time getting fired up over somebody not getting a GS that they would not have been awarded in the first place. Great it we change it, but not a priority for me. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:15 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands