|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 3337795)
The biggest change it would bring on the negative side is a big reduction in commutable rotations.
Carmen already leaves commuters underwhelmed. If anyone thinks she’ll start or finish many trips with block under the (new) guarantee, you’re smoking something. The one hope for commutable back end trips might be red eye finishes…but hitting min day efficiently on the day before go-home day could make for an ugly pre-redeye FDP. Unless you’re looking at the results that the optimizer would spit out under any new rigs (as Crewdog mentioned), I’m not sure people really know what they’re advocating for or against. I think it’s wise to fear the unintended consequences. |
Originally Posted by crewdawg
(Post 3337778)
My category has a grand total of 4 rotations with 30+ hour layover, no big loss there. Aside from the associated body clock flip, I've enjoyed the occasional 30 hours layover, but I certainly wouldn't pass on a min day because we might lose 30 hour layovers. I'd like to see the union get access to Carmen and publish two bid packets for the pilots to see what it would look like with/without min day.
|
Originally Posted by 172skychicken
(Post 3337817)
I think everyone realizes that you would see a large increase in credit comparing the same bid pack side by side with and without min day. The problem is that doesn't account for how the company's rotation construction behavior would change to account for it. Contrary to popular belief, rotation construction can still get a lot worse than it already is.
I don't disagree with you at all on that. Of course, if they get much worse, they'll likely be consequences that are undesirable to the company. We can't always avoid something because of the fear of change. The side-by-side comparison is more about seeing what trips would look like with new rules. We should have something like that for any big changes like this, rather than just going in blind. But therein lies the other big issue with our PWA, lack of control over trip construction, which needs to change. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 3337795)
Min day is a gain in most situations. The biggest change it would bring on the negative side is a big reduction in commutable rotations.
|
Originally Posted by crewdawg
(Post 3337823)
I don't disagree with you at all on that. Of course, if they get much worse, they'll likely be consequences that are undesirable to the company. We can't always avoid something because of the fear of change. The side-by-side comparison is more about seeing what trips would look like with new rules. We should have something like that for any big changes like this, rather than just going in blind. But therein lies the other big issue with our PWA, lack of control over trip construction, which needs to change.
|
I can’t tell which of these comments are talking about United and which are talking about Delta.
|
Originally Posted by 172skychicken
(Post 3337861)
It's the fear of trading additional work QOL in pursuit of higher compensation. That is a guarantee if we don't achieve at least partial control of rotation construction in the process.
There is QOL in working less days/month, but you're right, there has to be a balance of work day QOL as well. More control over rotation construction is absolutely needed. |
Originally Posted by Gunfighter
(Post 3337826)
The commutability ship has sailed. A reduction from 4% commutable down to 2% commutable isn't a factor worth considering in the coastal bases. ATL and MSP seem to have more commutable trips in the domestic categories and may feel the impact. The sodomizer killed commutability long ago.
2%??? Quit your bragging!!! NYC 737 is down to 1% |
Originally Posted by 172skychicken
(Post 3337817)
The problem is that doesn't account for how the company's rotation construction behavior would change to make up for it. We would just be guessing which exposes us to a bit of risk there. Contrary to popular belief, rotation construction can still get a lot worse than it already is.
Southwest folks seem to like AM/PM trips. Not something I'm not necessarily advocating for it but it's an example of a potential QOL tool. |
Originally Posted by 172skychicken
(Post 3337817)
The problem is that doesn't account for how the company's rotation construction behavior would change to make up for it. We would just be guessing which exposes us to a bit of risk there. Contrary to popular belief, rotation construction can still get a lot worse than it already is.
We already have 4:59 hour sits, 10:01 layovers, and 1% commutability with 0500 reports and 2345 releases (I'm talking about you LGA) and 4 day trips with 16 legs.....how much worse could they possible make it?!?! Please enlighten us! Bring on the Min Day! |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:36 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands