This is a ridiculous post, it has nothing to do with "Back in my day" and you know it. Nobody has that attitude.

I never had my hotel paid for in new hire training but I'm all for hotels, increased pay and uniform allowance for new hires.

 

Solution: Earn Skymiles on our deadheads.
Easy to implement.
Program already exists.
If you’re a commuter you can use them for PSC.
If you’re in base, use them for vacation.
Doesn’t put one group vs the other.
Commuter can use them for to work, from work, or both. You make the choice.
Want more Skymiles? Bid DH trips. Those who hate deadheads will get out of your way.

 

The sound of a mic drop.

 

The fact you think no one has this attitude means your head is buried in the sand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

ANY little thing that benefits some pilots more than others will create divisions. If it wasn’t PSC, it’d be something else. This just happens to be the flavor du jour.

But wanting to get rid of something that provides a clear benefit to greater than 50% of the pilot group because some non-commuters think their SeNiOrItY has been broached is ridiculous.

Again, the real problem is overbooking, not people trying to get to/from work.

 

Well maybe no one is an over statement. The numbers are likely few and far between. In my years flying at Delta I can only think of one guy that might be a candidate for that kind of attitude. Then again I'm not flying wide body so maybe there are a few old curmudgeons out there that might exhibit this attitude but by no means would I say it is a popular thought process.

It's 99% about the erosion of non-rev seniority with respect to PSC and maybe a 1% for other ignorant attitudes such as "back in my day".

Airfix

 

I'm not sure if there are 50% or more commuters among the pilot group is that a known fact? If so what is the source? I'm genuinely interested because I don't actually know the percentage of commuters.

Your statement is worded in your favor and I'd reword it as: "Not wanting to negotiate a benefit for one slice of the pilot group that hurts a different slice of the pilot group."

If we can all come out better than we are right now or if even only one slice of the pilot group (commuters) can come out better without hurting another I'd be all for it. I just don't know what that solution is. It certainly isn't the LOA as written that just expired. There are too many ways to abuse the system. Such as getting positive space back from New York, Atlanta, San Diego, Hawaii (or anywhere other than your nearest home airport) after a personal trip because you have a work trip the next day.

Maybe there is merit in X number of positive space seats per year for each pilot to be used for commuting or vacation travel. That's one of the few fair methods I see of skinning this cat. Maybe there are others.

Here are some of my thought processes for not supporting positive space commuting:

1) Without positive space commuting all non-revenue travel was based on seniority, whether you are going to work or not. It was a level (or maybe slightly sloped) playing field upholding seniority. This forced commuters to make some tough choices if they couldn't book a confirmed jump seat. I'd either go in the day before, 2 leg commute it or plan for one of those very early flights with more open seats planning a nap in the crew room before departure. This means non working non-revs can roll their own dice and hope for no-shows on their preferred day or change their route or day of travel. Notice, we are all treated equally. We are all non-revs no-one better than the rest and seniority is upheld. Nobody ever complained about commuting to work pre-PSC. Well they did complain but it didn't do any good because it was just a part of the job.

2) Positive space commuting benefits one section of the pilot group at the detriment of another. There is no denying that positive space commuting (as well as other items such as load factors and frequency) means less open seats for non-revs.

3) If the failure to commute (without PSC) rate was high enough the company could have an argument to add additional reserves (more pilot jobs) to cover the shortfall. Obviously the current administration like to run hot, so I doubt that would happen but it is a consideration.

4) Positive space commuting on a full flight means that a fare paying passenger has to get bumped or a last minute seat ticket not sold that would have been. Like it or not the company cares about revenue and so should we. We require the company to make revenue so we can negotiate a new contract and share in profit sharing. Granted the numbers are likely small in the big picture. Still, it's a consideration.

I'm sure if the bean counters at HQ see that PSC commuting is a financial or strategic benefit to the company it will come back whether I like it or not.

Until that time I'll continue to communicate to my reps what matters to me for a new contract and I suggest you all do the same.

Airfix

 

Cool story. Do you have friends?

No show / sick dispatchers can be covered with present dispatchers who share the additional workload.

WBs are frequently staffed with more FAs than the minimum. Extras can be pulled last minute to staff holes (sts), and missed-commutes above the minimum can be left behind. Extra pilots above the minimum are scheduled with extreme irregularity when block limits butt up against limits on some flights like a long turn.

 

This is correct. I flew with a rather salty FA last month who was the Q position on a Paris flight but rerouted to DTW (The Paris of America of course) due a sick call. The CDG flight just went with one less FA as they staff above the minimum. I remember the SYD attendants throwing a fit years ago when they reduced the 777 FA numbers and yet even the new numbers were above FAA mins.

 

I have seen ALPA post it a few times that > 50% of DL commute