We did except they only traded for a pinky promise which is obviously unacceptable. Yes, the company has created this monster of auto-accepts by spamming the entire pilot group and unfortunately you can't put that genie back in the bottle. So where do we go from here? And don't say nowhere because they will just keep paying triple pay because they aren't and don't intend to.

 

Seems like more of a them problem than an our problem, provided that we can continue to bring the monetary pain.

As to where we go from here, what has the company proposed?

 

They do pay triple every time they’re caught, or in limited cases in which they self-report, as required by the PWA.

The key right now isn’t rushing to the table. It’s implementing automated enforcement, and enforcing EVERY instance. Increase the value of auto accept even further. Then, and only then, can negotiating for a quid of greater or equal value be considered.

 

No. If you believe it's solely a them problem, you are ignorant of the facts. There is a substantial number of pilots, let's say 10-50% seniority that are too junior to get compensatory pay for 23M7 and are too senior to get an IA. It's not okay that the company is doing this (the only real violation is not filling out the m7 report in the vast majority of cases) and effectively abrogating seniority so a few senior pilots can collect m7 pay.

 

And let's say we catch every instance and they pay every time. We are just okay with 90% of the pilot group being harmed and only a select few collecting all the penalty? This has essentially become a free for all with junior pilots collecting IA pay and super senior pilots collecting the penalty. And it's completely PWA legal

 

I may be reading this wrong and don’t want to put words in your mouth, but are you actually saying we should get rid of auto accept?

 

I honestly don't care if a few senior pilots are making bank on contractual rules. I do care if the company is violating the contract. I think that balancing senior/junior is an entirely separate discussion to the one happening here.

So what's the trouble?

1) super-seniors making bank
2) company not paying properly

My vote is for #2.

And if #2 is the goal, and we furiously enforce it, I think that's the closest alligator to the boat and the best bargaining chip.

#1 can come later.

 

This right here. I cannot tell you how many times over the years I have gotten not just an extra day off, but multiple days off because of their incompetence. Why should be bail them out of that???? One example of improper notification was for rest. I once had CQ (non-contactable status) which required a 30-hour rest to be legal to do anything after. They didn't call me before I started a training day, and tried to call me during CQ to put me on rest. Not only that, it was an illegal rest starting on a training day. FAR 117 illegal. So I waited until I was back in contactable status, called them, and told them I needed a 30 hour rest. Long story short, after some whining an moaning from CS, they put me in a 30 hour rest. That combo made me unusable for an entire 3-day LC stretch. NOT. MY. PROBLEM. if the company can't figure out the simple stuff. This would be a massive give to the company - aka concession.

I'm a hard NO on giving relief on CNO or auto-acknowledging assignments. The quid required for me to say ok to that is 100% of ALL our asks, including a 20+% pay raise DOS. Take it or leave it.

 

I have flown with several people who said they use auto accept but have no intent to ever pick up a GS. It's not that I don't like auto-accept, it's that I don't care for the practice of using it to punish the company or giving themselves a bucket of one for every single GS call. Now, again, the company has created this monster because they don't use discretion when using large batch sizes. This practice won't stop even if batch sizes were returned to pre-LOA levels.

From what I understand, the scheduling committee members are tracking every single IA and ensuring 23M7 is paid properly, so number 2 is a non-issue, especially if it's as a previous poster said, that every time it's identified, it's paid. So number 2 isn't REALLY a problem. Number one is a problem but not in the way you implied. The company doesn't care who they pay, they just want the flying covered. What I do know is that skipping to IA means most premium trips are going to the bottom 50% without any real leveling mechanism. And the remedy is being paid to the top 1-5% of the list. The company is well within their rights to use 23M7 anytime within 8 hours (an incredibly unsatisfactory amount of time to use it) and it is directly harming not only pilots in the top 50% of the list and stripping them of their seniority, but also any pilot on a golden day (think reduced PB days as well) and any pilot whose accumulated credit is already greater than ALV.

 

Management loves playing on that argument. It’s exactly what won them batch size elimination for free. Stir up emotions over “abrogated seniority” among a vocal minority, encourage them to pressure the weaker members of the MEC, and voila! Major concessions at no cost to the company. The best part is, the concessions didn’t even solve the abrogated seniority issue.

I’m not against the negotiating committee talking about it later on in section 6, but only after its value has been fully maximized by automated enforcement. Even then, the quid will need to be enormous given the cost of triple pay coverage to the company.