Originally Posted by Gunfighter (Post 3748494)

How about everyone based in ATL. Many would quit before moving, myself included. It would require Delta IT moving forward a century in technology, but it's possible.

I'm in favor of keeping seniority within BES when covering trips. That is the point of a B. Exercise of seniority for BES choces is avialable monthly via the AE process. If a pilot can't hold a BES, should they be flying there? If a pilot can hold BES and choses not to, should they be flying there? Instead of NYC 330B flying OOBWS, maybe they could bid in base for what their seniority can hold?

Please draw me a picture using PWA trip coverage sequence where OOBWS does not cover a trip at single pay instead of 2x pay. My comprehension of PWA trip coverage is that the next step after single pay OOBWS was GS. Did I miss something in trip coverage or are we on different topics?

WRT staffing, OOBWS ensures we can keep staffing lower in ATL because NYC pilots will pick up the trips. It actually works against us by artificially inflating the staffing requriements for NYC while lowering the staffing required in ATL.

Originally Posted by FangsF15 (Post 3748510)

There is no PWA reference. I’ve said that from the start. Thus why I have said I would support a PWA change lowering OOBWS on the coverage ladder (below GS, for example), and/or limiting you to 1 or 2 OOBWS per base per month - perhaps exempting NH’s in their original equipment. That wouldn’t prevent the occasional good deal for commuters, but would stop the pilots who never fly a trip from their own base.

Again, just my opinion. Which probably matters about as much to anyone as the fact I also don’t like sushi.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3748524)

All it does is shift the GS to the less desirable base making that base more expesive to operate. That in turn makes the company choose to pay more if they grow a base nobody wants. The coverage ladder puts priority on cost to the company over base assignment. It is what it is.

Originally Posted by m3113n1a1 (Post 3748550)

Might as well get rid of whiteslips too then if we're all against junior guys taking trips for straight pay so senior daddy can get his greenslip.

Originally Posted by FangsF15 (Post 3748510)

There is no PWA reference. I’ve said that from the start. Thus why I have said I would support a PWA change lowering OOBWS on the coverage ladder (below GS, for example), and/or limiting you to 1 or 2 OOBWS per base per month - perhaps exempting NH’s in their original equipment. That wouldn’t prevent the occasional good deal for commuters, but would stop the pilots who never fly a trip from their own base.

Again, just my opinion. Which probably matters about as much to anyone as the fact I also don’t like sushi.

Originally Posted by Gunfighter (Post 3748539)

I get how the current system is a cost saving feature for the company. That was my point about OOBWS over GS reducing the aggregate value of the PWA. I won't begrudge anyone exercising a contractual right, but I have also politely shared my viewpoint face to face on the matter. No drama ensued much to the disappointment of those who think such a conversation demands a verbal assault and a call to pro stans.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3748589)

My opionion is to NOT make the PWA more restrictive, in fact it's to make it less and increase QOL options through the use of your seniority.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3748589)

My opionion is to NOT make the PWA more restrictive, in fact it's to make it less and increase QOL options through the use of your seniority.