Search

Notices

23.M.7 Updated

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-26-2023 | 08:30 AM
  #11  
Banned
 
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 8,831
Likes: 501
Default

Originally Posted by Puddytatt
My point was that they might not "publish" all the trips they used 23m7 on like they agreed to. Time will tell.
that should be pretty easy for the scheduling committee to track
Reply
Old 06-26-2023 | 09:18 AM
  #12  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 1,004
Likes: 116
Default

I was hoping this new contract would have more punitive measures for the company exercising 23.M.7. I wrote my reps that the NC ought to push for awarding PB days in addition to paying the affected pilot(s). It appears "no change" was what won the day.

A5S
Reply
Old 06-26-2023 | 09:19 AM
  #13  
On Reserve
 
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 130
Likes: 5
Default

Originally Posted by OOfff
that should be pretty easy for the scheduling committee to track
so we gave up batch sizes to fix a management problem. What was exchanged for That give, the company promises to do what they’re already obligated to do in paying the skipped senior pilot?

I see they have unlimited 23m7 to within 8 hours now, but it seems like we gave up something to get what we’ve already got… just with a promise of tracking and compliance. Not sure this was an overall good deal.
Reply
Old 06-26-2023 | 09:20 AM
  #14  
Banned
 
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Default

All this is going to do is increase the number of pilots who accept a proffer, then refuse or ignore the acknowledgement. The company thinks they're being all clever and solving their problem while sticking it to us, but in reality, it's just going to make things worse when they think trips are covered and then people refuse it at the ack phase and then it still has to roll through small batches to cover the trip like it currently does.

So next month, the union will probably give concessions that if you accept the proffer it's yours and you have to do it, to solve that problem for them.
Reply
Old 06-26-2023 | 09:21 AM
  #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 888
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Puddytatt
My point was that they might not "publish" all the trips they used 23m7 on like they agreed to. Time will tell.
I don't believe the company negotiated this without the intent to comply. And they said they're going to automate the process next summer... so then they WILL be complying (unless they built automation that doesn't do what it's supposed to and we should be able to check that...)

Batch sizes needed to change, they were too restrictive and caused at least some of the 23.M.7 heartache but did they need to go to unlimited? Probably not.

Also, did we get enough restriction in the use of 23.M.7 to justify the huge give on batch sizes? Not sure.

I'll be interested to see if this causes guys to pull their blanket green slips and we go back to the days of only putting in a green slip when you wanted to fly vs having one in always.
Reply
Old 06-26-2023 | 10:57 AM
  #16  
Moderator
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,564
Likes: 556
Default

What did we get for solving managements problem? So far I haven't read anything that was something good in our favor.
Reply
Old 06-26-2023 | 11:01 AM
  #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 5,605
Likes: 261
From: UNA
Default

Originally Posted by crewdawg
What did we get for solving managements problem? So far I haven't read anything that was something good in our favor.
same, this seems like a major giveaway and all we got was the company doing what they were supposed to be doing all along.
Reply
Old 06-26-2023 | 11:33 AM
  #18  
20Fathoms's Avatar
Line Holder
 
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 1,444
Likes: 188
Default

Originally Posted by Gone Flying
same, this seems like a major giveaway and all we got was the company doing what they were supposed to be doing all along.
Agreed, I kept on reading thinking I was missing something but this seems like a major fail. Wish we got to vote on it.
Reply
Old 06-26-2023 | 11:34 AM
  #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 5,605
Likes: 261
From: UNA
Default

Originally Posted by 20Fathoms
Agreed, I kept on reading thinking I was missing something but this seems like a major fail. Wish we got to vote on it.
same, why didn’t it go to MEMRAT? Because it was a grievance settlement?
Reply
Old 06-26-2023 | 11:36 AM
  #20  
Roll’n Thunder
Community Influencer
15 Years
On Reserve
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,222
Likes: 671
From: Pilot
Default

Originally Posted by Gone Flying
same, why didn’t it go to MEMRAT? Because it was a grievance settlement?
Yes, this is exactly it. A grievance settlement is different from an LOA. The MEC has basically unlimited latitude when it comes to settlements.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Excargodog
COVID19
70
11-26-2021 08:01 AM
RBZL
Part 135
481
03-13-2020 10:02 AM
purplepilot
Cargo
35
09-13-2007 04:00 AM
HSLD
Major
0
11-18-2005 01:46 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices