Im genuinely just wondering what changed in this new contract that has CS drunk on IA usage.

 

Don't get me wrong. I totally think they started doing this post contract because of not being in section 6 anymore, just like Buck described. I was saying I meant them doing it ironically was sarcasm.

It isn't a coincidence that within a month of us no longer being in mediation is when this all started. Go look at trip coverage. In my category there are A's almost every single day back to the 60 days it allows you to look. That didn't happen prior to March 2nd. Very rare that A's went out. Definitely not 10 a day like some days now. This is just a short term staffing fix with a hope they win a grievance so they can keep doing it. If they get told no, well at least they got away with it for several months while the grievance went through the system. You're kidding yourself if you don't think the end of Section 6 and this new coverage technique (that hasn't changed in the new PWA) aren't related. They got pushback last May from ALPA when they did this, so they knew ALPA would fight for status quo violation, aka self-help/strike, if they kept doing it.

 

Nothing changed, other than no longer being in section 6.

 

it's possible they just wised up to the ways around the batch size issue. avoid a batch size violation and get the trip covered with IA..doesn't take a genius to figure out that's a good workaround if you're the company. like i said-we are the ones harmed by this whole thing,but some of you think getting bothered by a phone call because of your blanket GS harms the pilot group more. funny thing is they'll just call and harass you with IA with no recourse

 

Stay above the ALV and you won't ever get those calls either 🤣

 

Blocking the VRU phone number, on days when I have no interest in flying an IA, is quick and easy.

 

What if this is an elaborate plan for the company to discourage those dudes that have blanket GS just to harvest batch size violation payouts?

Half joking. Half mildly serious.

 

Then they’re just playing right into the hands of the senior people harvesting 23M7 pay instead.

 

The question is what in this contract prevented the 'abuse'. I contend that this contract does nothing, but gets you paid for it.

Structurally, they did very little to fix anything.

 

It absolutely would not have been a status quo violation. It would have been a minor dispute subject to the grievance process. The threshold for a status quo violation is extremely high. Something like unilaterally changing pay rates. If the company can make an argument that something is permitted in the contract, it’s a minor dispute and not a status quo violation.