More importantly, it costs the company 3x to cover a trip, particularly as enforcement ramps up. That’s massive leverage. Management would prefer that we forget that part and instead continue infighting.

 

23M7 is only legal 8 hours from report. Writing the company into compliance has never worked. It only removes the punitive side of the enforcement equation.

 

No one is saying that. While there may be some IAs outside of 8 hours, the vast majority are legal assignments per 23M7 and not one person is arguing we should change the 8 hour rule
I agree. And we should continue to ensure compliance

And at the appropriate coverage step, that's not a problem

 

Oak notes inspired Mission+ update just dropped. Update available via Hub

 

I think identifying the correct pilot for 23M7 is cursory at best. If a senior has a WS in and gets paid for a trip that should make them ineligible for the footprint of the trip and any rest required prior to the next trip. If a senior should have gotten a GS that needs to be coded as G# and move to the next. Eventually all the eligibility would be used up and the benefits move more junior. Collecting 23M7 for multiple overlapping trips or multiple GS while not moving to the back of the line is the problem for mid seniority folks.

 

I agree with this wholeheartedly,

At the same time, I feel that the much bigger threat is spending any negotiating capital to achieve it. The company doesn't give a sh*t who gets paid... hell they would rather pay the junior pilot at the lower pay rate.

This is why I feel that discussion over 23m7 senior/junior is superfluous, albeit relevant. And potentially a distraction.

 

You would need 15 priorities to cover every combination of 4 trips—but the template only accommodates up to 8.

For the math nerds: You need 2^n - 1 slots to fully cover n trips (the “- 1” represents the trivial case of dropping zero trips—which is the status quo). One slot required for a single trip; three slots for 2 trips; seven slots for 3 trips; and you have to make choices for 4 or more trips….

 

Good thing I still use the OG

 

I care. In my DnD settings, I set the CNO phone number to silent, because I don't want it waking me up to a acknowledge a hotel change 3 days out. I do, however, want a live scheduler calling me if I'm sleeping during my 0400 SC.

Current system allows me to do this.

 

Penalties discourage the company from taking shortcuts to fix their shortcomings. If we removed these penalties, the company would take more shortcuts without recourse, and squeeze more efficiency out of the pilot population as a whole. We simply should never, ever concede on that front, and the same could have been said about batch size arguments.

Have you ever had the discussion with a new hire complaining about not being able to pickup over vacation or APDs? The company would love that, but it's the union that doesn't allow it, because we are our own worst enemy. If you let pilots fly more, with more freebie scheduling efficiencies, greenslips go down, reroutes go down, reserve manning goes down, hiring goes down, but total company block hours flown remain the same. None of this would be good for us. Keep the guardrails in place. Look at the general forum yearly compensation thread and note how our yearly block hours compare to other airline's block hours, and ask yourself if you want to give any inch of that away.


Let's say you're at the board meeting discussing how to prevent next summer's meltdowns and two options are presented: 1) Convince the union to concede auto-accepts and robo-call limitations or 2) Pre-emptively assign more silver slips, VAS, and premium reserve days, and staff reserves enough so that they're actually waiting on reserve to cover problem trips and not just used to pick up left over bid packet trips from open time.

Which is better for us, big picture? Which leaves us with better QOL? Which is better aligned with the point of a union?