Accept those and then ACE them when you aren't awarded it. Profit.

How is this going to stop VRU calls for trips you won’t get? It seems like it will increase them for green slips for trips you’ll never get.

I think we may be talking past each other, because my point is that this isn’t a win. And I would need to see some seriously good arguments to I’ve otherwise.

If you auto acknowledge a trip can you then not accept the trip once it is awarded to you?

The crummy options in the iCrew GS page are nowhere near complex enough to use to accept a trip without looking at it. Just going off latest sign in, or earliest release is not enough. Is it a redeye then I'll maybe do it if it is a deadhead back that I can deviate from and come back on the first AM flight. I'll take an earlier sign-in if it is a 3 day GS with an early release on day 3. Is it a nice SAN turn or a JFK turn into weather? I'll take a late release if it's just a turn up to JAC. There are far too many variables that depend on intangibles on how I'm feeling at the time of acknowledgement.

Can we get some of the AI stuff running here to make GS decision for me while I sleep rather than iCrew?

Ha so true. Though make it 412 in some categories. What I find crazy is even the people on here most vocal in favor of expanding batch sizes didn’t say eliminate them entirely. Literally who the heck was in favor of that?! Honestly pretty pi$$ed at ALPA over this. Had an email to my reps typed when council 54 put out an update.

I’ll just do auto-accept but that means I lose the ability to preview and sort pairings. Straight up 100 percent reduction in (my personal) QOL. And the quid? “We promise to do what we promised earlier to do. But this time we mean it. We also won’t do it earlier than we weren’t doing it.”:rolleyes:

I haven't been on the line in a while, so I haven't been following it closely, but how much negotiating capital did we waste over the last two years on batch sizes? Didn't it start in one of the COVID LOA's, then it got tightened with financial penalties during C2019? And we gave that up for...the company to follow the contract that already existed?

I could see something like this being negotiated if it had included a much more defined and limited set of circumstances that 23.M.7 could be used, and a much narrower time window (I see no reason anything greater than SC callout would be necessary, so around 2 hours). Now we just gave the company carte blanch to disregard the coverage ladder when there with more than 2 PCS runs worth of time remaining before show. What benefit did ALPA see in agreeing to this?

Sounds like the MEC chair went rogue on this and agreed to the settlement without consultation from the MEC itself.

Policy manual allows this. Two questions:

1) Should the policy manual be changed so that the Chair can’t unilaterally sign grievance settlements?

2) Should the current Chair be recalled over this blatant misstep?

1. yes
2. I will contact my LEC, this is a major deal, I will ask my lec to recall the chairman.

Policy manual already states that any proposed grievance settlement must be presented to the MEC prior to signing for at least 96 hours, and may be rejected if a majority of the MEC so wills.

If the grievance settlement was signed, that means a majority of the MEC approved of it.