Not our problem to solve. It is he company’s. They are the ones violating the contract not ALPA. ALPA could (and maybe should) go to the Company with a larger batch size offer in trade for something really good like positive space. But it would be better for the Company to come to ALPA with the larger batch size ask and then ALPA can better negotiate terms as the one being asked for the favor.

A few years back one of the biggest complaints was the company was using batch sizes that were too large. Pilots were tired of getting calls for trips they had no chance of being awarded. ALPA pushed the company to reduce the batch sizes. Might be hard to go back now and ask for a increase.

they went too far and created a problem. I don’t see any harm in fixing the problem. Batch sizes are too small now. Unlimited is probably too much. Something reasonable in the middle is not going to hurt anyone.

The company isn't being harmed by this as much as we are. I've probably personally lost thousands because of this. I agree ALPA should have negotiated something in exchange during the contract, but they didn't.

If someone calls them out on each IA and ACE's it, they are in effect triple paying for each trip they IA. Personally lost money as well, but as a pilot group, it's more wages being paid (or waiting 4 months to be paid as it were with ACE).

In the last decade, I've only spoken to a scheduler when I've called them.

Hot off the presses! (As of March 1). ARCOS batch size changes coming October 1 per the contract signed by both the company and ALPA.

That’s a pretty broad brush and a hard disagree. I’m in a tiny category and I live in base so small batch sizes don’t bother me. In fact the smaller the better. Know what would bother me? The phone ringing for a greenslip I have no chance of getting. Keep batch sizes where they are.

I’d be willing to entertain a percentile based batch size….if the company gave us a big enough quid. Until then not our problem to solve.

small point, we asked for the “too far” and got it with a COVID LOA driving the current sizes.

look at it closely. does it apply to short notice trips? it's also a very small increase. There needs to be some common sense. a percentage of category size would be the best solution.

Couldn’t disagree more. Percentage of category means just because you are in a large category you will get many calls for green slips you won’t get. No thanks.

It will triple the size for all trips 8 or more hours. I'd had to know your threshold to consider something bigger than very small.

The net cost of this to the company is far greater than the net cost to the pilot group as a whole. Currently the company is paying 300% of the value of a trip to cover it under 23M7. If batch sizes are adjusted to the extent that they can avoid 23M7, they’ll only be paying 200%.

We have far greater leverage here than many realize. I’m firmly against any changes to the batch sizes unless we receive something substantial in return.

Maybe if they assign known open time two days out they can get that out of the way so they can deal with shorter notice stuff easier as it comes up.

Let’s try the changes agreed to before tossing the limits.

yes an increase from 1-3 is tiny in categories with 600 pilots..that's like having a nickel and tripling it and saying you're rich now. There have been 36,000 ACE reports in the last 3 years and I'd say a vast majority are probably caused by this-that includes the insane amount of reroutes. I guess you all are OK with getting rerouted for crap that could easily be covered with ARCOS if we eased up a little. Just keep the batch limits at night lower, but let them cover stuff during the day. I can't tell you how many 3am wake up calls I get for stuff that's been going through coverage for 12 hours plus. It's ridiculous. If you don't want to be bothered take out your slip or tighten your parameters. I also find it funny that pilots get mad if they get woken up for a GS, but are cool with the crazy amount of IA calls that come through with trips they won't get. The only people OK with this are the ones profiting off 23M7 and the batch sizes which are rare now or those that aren't affected since they're in a small category.

You’re assuming every pilot that should’ve been pay protected was. That is most certainly not the case as it requires a pilot to call scheduling and/or submit an ACE.

Batch sizes are fine. They are in a hurry because all the bonus pay will kick in for the reroutes in SEP.

Scheduling is now regularly covering rotations by IA that are in excess of two hours from report. They have no shame.

That may have been the case in the past, but the issue has garnered enough attention that nearly every IA is receiving scrutiny from ALPA now. Surprisingly, the company self-complies with the 23M7 pay requirement a good percentage of the time as well - before they are ever called on it.

A small number of these may still slip through the cracks, but the bottom line is the company is paying a lot more money using 23M7 than they would be if we gave them batch size concessions.

Do you have numbers to back that up? Because that's not the picture that has been illustrated by members of the scheduling committee that I have spoken with.

too late. It's already been negotiated away.

Standby for incoming

IA is a very very tiny portion of it..most of these end up going to reroute and it's very hard to catch. even if it was just IA, there's 36,000 ACE reports in 3 years, but you think the system is fine how it is? amazing. And the scheduling people I talk with on my ACE reports say the company rarely pays the 23m7 pilot without prodding.

All reroutes should be examined by ALPA anyway. They are rarely paid correctly - even when the coverage ladder is not skipped. The scheduling committee is trying to get to that point. They already encourage every rerouted pilot to submit an ACE report.

I wouldn’t call the current system perfect at all. I’m simply saying that from a financial perspective, it’s a far greater problem for the company than it is for us. The company wants ALPA to fix it for free. I’m all for ALPA fixing it ONLY if we receive something that is closely proportional to the value of this to the company. PSC would be a good starting point.

When did they say this?

I mean this in the nicest possible way, but…. Are you living under a rock?

i agree with you that we should receive something in kind, but I'm not sure why this wasn't addressed in the new PWA-that was the time to do it. it's not like this is a new problem

It was addressed and full implementation is 2 more years away. with real time ALPA access and reroute pay going away they will pay more for mishandling scheduling. They (management) know this and are trying to get easy relief early before it becomes an obvious cost increase, and more expensive to negotiate.

the underlying problem has not been addressed sufficiently really. Yes they’ll have to pay more but do you think that bothers them? They’ve bought us off many times with many grievances.

This. The longer this goes on, the more the company will need to offer us to solve the problem. They will try to get out of this early and inexpensively.

I recognize that many pilots believe they’ve been personally wronged by the company’s overuse of 23M7. I tend to agree with all of them. However, the company will encourage those pilots to direct their frustration to the MEC and demand immediate batch size relief. By framing it as a pilot problem, not a management problem, they can try to recruit pilots to assist their cause of obtaining cheap relief.

As frustrated as many pilots are, we need to recognize that the pilot group has the upper hand here. Any negotiations that take place should reflect that.

When were these negotiations and what was the result?

If every rerouted pilot submitted an ACE, they would be backed up 2 years out.

the problem is we are the ones that asked for and got these ridiculously low batch sizes in the first place. I dunno why ALPA had to cut back so much. There should have been some serious discussion and testing prior to cutting them back so much. Simple math would tell you that a batch of 1 and 5 will not work in massive categories

be careful what you wish for.

That’s the equivalent of the company coming to us for pay concessions for whatever reason, and us saying “I don’t know why ALPA asked for such high pay rates in the first place.”

Everything you’re describing is a failure of the company’s negotiating team, not ALPA’s. Their loss will eventually become our gain. This routinely happens on both sides and is why we have LOAs.

I attempt to read every union comm sent (MEC, committees, each LEC), company weekly and monthly updates and try to skim through these forums with frequency. Facebook and Skyhub maybe once before every trip at a quick ish glance. I've asked someone on the MEC Scheduling Committee this week whether they want us to ACE every reroute or not (as is often recommended here) and they said no, first contact company and then only ACE if you suspect pay is due or other violations occurred. While not the only or even leading factor, pilot behavior is contributing to the backlog of ACE reports we are currently experiencing. It's possible the ALPA person I talked to was wrong or I simply missed an official memo among the plethora of information out there, which is why I asked. How about it then? You have a source or are you just going to be smug?

23.M.7 has been abused so much -- especially last summer -- that amost by default I suspect another pilot is due pay on any reroute.

A5S

Not trying to be smug at all, just a little humor/sarcasm. But like many things funny, it’s based in truth.

I would take issue with the bolded thought. It’s the company’s behavior that is causing the backlog of ACE. The fact we EVER have to double check via ACE, much less most every time for a violation the company does absolutely nothing to identify on its own is tantamount to wage theft. How they continually fail to find owed hours the union finds by the tens of thousands is beyond egregious.

But no, it was an attempt at humor, not a shot at you.

Fair enough, I misread you. Look I'm fairly new here, doing my part to learn and raise my hand where I can. I totally agree with what you're saying, just relaying the info I got from a credible source. They weren't making excuses for the company, just saying that pilot behavior is a contributing factor in all this mess. I get the idea of "err on the side of ACEing" but I was told not to report every reroute for the sake of it.

sorry, but I have to disagree. As I said, there was obviously no testing or major discussion of how batch sizes so low would affect us as pilots. OK, so one person who probably wasn't going to fly the trip anyway gets paid and I'm supposed to be happy about that? We get rerouted way more frequently because someone with a blanket slip in doesn't like hearing their phone ring. Great deal for us that would actually fly a GS.

Ditto. Nor does it line up with the last 2 green slips I was called for that were filled via IA being run simultaneously.

I asked both schedulers both times if the proper pilot was pay protected and both times I was told “it wasn’t submitted” and me calling was the only reason it eventually was.