Originally Posted by LumberJack (Post 3248966)

If a company can't be highly successful using regular and reserve pilots, with the very rare green slips and reroutes for IROPS, then that company has major flaws somewhere else. Rest assured Delta can still lead the pack with a few more pilots on property. It raises the QOL of EVERYONE on the list except for those desperate for greenies.

Originally Posted by Herkflyr (Post 3248886)

At no time do we EVER "lose pay" due to a reroute. When you are awarded a trip as a line holder, whether initial PBS award or any other method, you are always guaranteed the value of the trip as created. Then that is "set aside" and your trip as you fly it becomes a work in progress. Depending on a host of possibilities, the value of your trip might increase or decrease, often several times throughout the course of the trip. Pilots should realize that just because you over blocked an hour on day one of a four day doesn't mean you've automatically made an extra hour. Further changes are always possible.

When the trip as you flew it is complete, then that value is compared to the original value and you get the higher of the two.

Let me put it this way. Let's say you have a five day originally worth 26.15. By day two, due to all sorts of bad weather, you have over blocked a lot and now your rotation shows 28 hours. "We're making time baby!" you say. Then on day three the rest of the trip cancels and you get to go home.

You get 26.15, the original value of the trip. Has the IROPS in this example "cost you?" Absolutely not. In fact in this example you're getting 26.15 for what turned out to be a three day (yes this is an extreme example that likely won't ever happen, but you get the point).

Reroutes can suck at times. I've been there. But they never, ever cost you anything other than hypothetical money. NEVER automatically assume that just because at some point your rotation shows you as "making time" that that is set in stone. Only the original value of your trip is guaranteed. All else is "TBD"

Originally Posted by Herkflyr (Post 3248886)

At no time do we EVER "lose pay" due to a reroute. When you are awarded a trip as a line holder, whether initial PBS award or any other method, you are always guaranteed the value of the trip as created. Then that is "set aside" and your trip as you fly it becomes a work in progress. Depending on a host of possibilities, the value of your trip might increase or decrease, often several times throughout the course of the trip. Pilots should realize that just because you over blocked an hour on day one of a four day doesn't mean you've automatically made an extra hour. Further changes are always possible.

When the trip as you flew it is complete, then that value is compared to the original value and you get the higher of the two.

Let me put it this way. Let's say you have a five day originally worth 26.15. By day two, due to all sorts of bad weather, you have over blocked a lot and now your rotation shows 28 hours. "We're making time baby!" you say. Then on day three the rest of the trip cancels and you get to go home.

You get 26.15, the original value of the trip. Has the IROPS in this example "cost you?" Absolutely not. In fact in this example you're getting 26.15 for what turned out to be a three day (yes this is an extreme example that likely won't ever happen, but you get the point).

Reroutes can suck at times. I've been there. But they never, ever cost you anything other than hypothetical money. NEVER automatically assume that just because at some point your rotation shows you as "making time" that that is set in stone. Only the original value of your trip is guaranteed. All else is "TBD"

Originally Posted by Trip7 (Post 3249024)

Agreed for lineholders. Reroutes can suck badly for reserves. 4 day reserve GS can turn into a 1 day and you lose your spot in the GS line

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 3248967)

Would you trade a higher number of shortcalls or airport standby for a reduction in reroutes? We are already one of the least efficient pilot groups in the world. Do you think it would be a easy task to convince management and more importantly the NMB we should be even less efficient?

Originally Posted by LumberJack (Post 3249066)

​​​​​​There would be more pilots, meaning more line holders and more reserves, meaning more short call reserves. Life is good.

H*** no to airport stdby. Been there, done that, it's terrible. THAT's what GSs are for. Here's an idea, airport standby is voluntary and pays quadruple.

Why is it any more difficult to increase staffing to the proper level than it is to increase pay rates? Both are costs, but better staffing is actually a win win, easier to justify than increasing pay rates.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 3248967)

Would you trade a higher number of shortcalls or airport standby for a reduction in reroutes? We are already one of the least efficient pilot groups in the world. Do you think it would be a easy task to convince management and more importantly the NMB we should be even less efficient?

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3249128)

The A350 introduction shows that pilot costs on staffing are not the make or break factor you like to say they are. Double pay for reroutes would only discourage them and make them go to volunteers via greenslips. We could have en route greenslips. You are already working but are willing to accept a reroute for 2x pay.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 3249105)

Its not difficult to increase staffing. It’s just another cost. The problem is we have some of the highest staffing in the industry now per airframe. We are not currently short of pilots. We are short of pilots in the correct seats. That’s somewhat a management function however given the constraints of our contract to have the right pilots in the right seats would mean forcing network decisions way out in the future. I don’t think anyone wants to go back to the days of involuntary TAD’s ect.. If the company is going to respond to rapidly changing market conditions shortages in categories will always happen. What we have seen evolve over the last 20 years is vastly different than 30 years ago.
The other point is reroutes are not really a lack of reserve issue. Reserves only a small percentage of reroute needs unless you went to airport standby.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 3249105)

Its not difficult to increase staffing. It’s just another cost. The problem is we have some of the highest staffing in the industry now per airframe. We are not currently short of pilots. We are short of pilots in the correct seats. ...


The other point is reroutes are not really a lack of reserve issue. Reserves only a small percentage of reroute needs unless you went to airport standby.