Originally Posted by Whoopsmybad

Well they wanted unlimited batch sizes, this is a consequence. Small batch sizes, I’ll stop. Follow the contract and make it where people aren’t fishing for 23M7 payments, you reduce people playing the game. Not our problem to fix.
But you can’t tell me I can’t use auto accept, especially while on duty, so that if it does get to me I have a chance (if I can answer my phone) and didn’t just miss it.

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44

This is what I’m saying. Our contract is dated. I’d like to see IA go out after GS coverage with no regards to auto-accept. Everyone gets a call, most senior that wants it gets trip. Everyone that gets a call gets 2 hours of pay (the old batch size vioaltion penalty). The 2 hours pay to everyone is to prevent them from skipping GS coverage without a huge cost. If they followed GS coverage the right way, it would never be used.

Originally Posted by waldo135

To be clear, the increased use of IA is to some extent (how much is up for debate) due to the use of auto-accept. It only takes 6 auto-accepts that don’t answer to eat up an hour of trying to cover the trip.

Originally Posted by CBreezy

The reason why inverse assignments are inverse is because they aren't profers. The way our call out system is designed now, especially using the VRU in the way they are, inverse assignments are effectively proffers. They are designed to "punish" the most junior available pilot before a senior one and "trick them" to try and get them to pick up the phone. It's an archaic mentality that really isn't applicable to the way the airline does business. Furthermore, sending them to ARCOS further separates the entire premise of a IA making it a full proffer. They aren't designed to benefit a junior pilot over a senior pilot. If you are going to make IA a no auto accept, no batch ARCOS call, it needs to be seniority order.



And I want to be clear that I'm not interested in just bending over. We need to continue to enforce the contract and extra 300% pay out of the company. BUT, they will want relief and I fully support us negotiating meaningful and measurable contractual gains, especially outside of section 6. You want to be able to just pay premium and not 300%? Okay, here's how it'll work and we want x in return. That's how you use leverage.

Originally Posted by 20Fathoms

So much this!

Ceo Gru:

Step 1: Abrogate seniority to violate contract to manufacture crisis.

Step 2: Cry that the crisis is unsustainable and that seniority is being violated.

Step 3: Utilize a vocal minority of pilots to post here and lean on their weak union reps to give relief because the status quo is “unsustainable” and the company needs relief.

Step 4: Have the union write the company into compliance so the violations aren’t violations anymore.

Step 5: Profit and go on to stealing the moon.

Originally Posted by Viper25

I do not endorse just blindly giving up VRU.

If there were a massive gain(s) in return, then I have no problem exchanging that for CRU.

What happens:
1) contractual gains
2) a loss of violation based compensation, which isn’t the purpose of the PWA
3) a robot calls me instead of a human

Im most excited about number 1. Number 2 is part of that philosophical discussion from earlier. I do not care at all about number 3.

To those people who say they want to give up auto accept or VRU *for no reason* or to help the company (and those people have been on Facebook a lot), I am in complete opposition to them.

Originally Posted by notEnuf

The solution is to make IAs pay like normal trips and have all the premium add to a pay out pool split evenly each month to the entire group. If you get assigned a trip there are circumstances that don’t allow you to fly the trip. IAs were and should be a bad thing for both the company and the pilots.

Originally Posted by cencal83406

“VRU” isn’t a live scheduler.

“CRU” isn’t. thing.

Originally Posted by Meme In Command

Ol' reliable: "sorry, I had a beer earlier"