23M7 Not being documented
#21
Roll’n Thunder
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: Pilot
Posts: 3,552
That's certainly a work around, but it's not something I always want. One issue being the ranking of trips for a callout with a multiple GS. During the day, it's nice to be able to look at the trips, rank them and having the seperate accept/ack calls helps for the times I'm checking with the boss. Switching them back and forth in iCrew is a PITA, which is why I mentioned the slider idea. Heck even as something like auto-accept for callouts during X time periods, would have been better than we we got.
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,909
Yet you manage to come out of the woodwork to defend ALPA every single time this topic is brought up. It’s a strange place to hang your hat. Especially without having any connection to the people involved in the deal, either directly or indirectly.
I’m a strong supporter of our union. However, they can and do make mistakes. This particular one was egregious.
I’m a strong supporter of our union. However, they can and do make mistakes. This particular one was egregious.
I'm just an observer of human behavior. It's pretty easy to say "those guys suck" and "I could do better"...so that's what you hear here a lot. Folks who think we caved on this when there was a clear and significantly better path haven't shown me any reason to think SK's judgement was out to lunch. No one who thinks taking this stuff to a grievance can show me a historic grievance settlement that demonstrates we would have had a strong win on 23m7...which was rolled in with the batch size changes. The last time I thought we had a clear grievance win, the settlement paid be about half an hour of pay. Yikes.
I'd never want to commit my (or my family's) time to union work. The best I can do is pay attention to candidates running to represent me and engage them in their official role. I'm lucky enough to trust my rep, who has always been responsive and informative when I've reached out to him. I trust the way he thinks and makes decisions. I want to continue to have excellent representation, which will only happen when good people sign up to serve their constituents. I called my rep the same hour this agreement was made public (furious), and I asked questions and listened to the details. In the end, the situation was complex - as are most things folks here try to oversimplify - and I'm not certain there was low hanging fruit that the loudest complainers think was so obviously missed by SK and the scheduling committee. And as far as I know, a majority of the MEC with far more information than I have made the judgement call to support the agreement.
I'm all ears - this agreement was egresious why, exactly? What is your supporting evidence that we could have achieved significantly more, on a timeline that wouldn't have ceded significant unaccounted-for losses in pilot pay? What percentage of pilots didn't want batch limitations? (I don't know the answer but would love to). Some folks have claimed there is a sweet spot in batch sizes...but who decides what that is? Someone who needs another hour to make an airport run happen or someone who needs a day of coordination to line up a nanny?
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,067
Out of the woodwork? I think I comment pretty regularly.
I'm just an observer of human behavior. It's pretty easy to say "those guys suck" and "I could do better"...so that's what you hear here a lot. Folks who think we caved on this when there was a clear and significantly better path haven't shown me any reason to think SK's judgement was out to lunch. No one who thinks taking this stuff to a grievance can show me a historic grievance settlement that demonstrates we would have had a strong win on 23m7...which was rolled in with the batch size changes. The last time I thought we had a clear grievance win, the settlement paid be about half an hour of pay. Yikes.
I'd never want to commit my (or my family's) time to union work. The best I can do is pay attention to candidates running to represent me and engage them in their official role. I'm lucky enough to trust my rep, who has always been responsive and informative when I've reached out to him. I trust the way he thinks and makes decisions. I want to continue to have excellent representation, which will only happen when good people sign up to serve their constituents. I called my rep the same hour this agreement was made public (furious), and I asked questions and listened to the details. In the end, the situation was complex - as are most things folks here try to oversimplify - and I'm not certain there was low hanging fruit that the loudest complainers think was so obviously missed by SK and the scheduling committee. And as far as I know, a majority of the MEC with far more information than I have made the judgement call to support the agreement.
I'm all ears - this agreement was egresious why, exactly? What is your supporting evidence that we could have achieved significantly more, on a timeline that wouldn't have ceded significant unaccounted-for losses in pilot pay? What percentage of pilots didn't want batch limitations? (I don't know the answer but would love to). Some folks have claimed there is a sweet spot in batch sizes...but who decides what that is? Someone who needs another hour to make an airport run happen or someone who needs a day of coordination to line up a nanny?
I'm just an observer of human behavior. It's pretty easy to say "those guys suck" and "I could do better"...so that's what you hear here a lot. Folks who think we caved on this when there was a clear and significantly better path haven't shown me any reason to think SK's judgement was out to lunch. No one who thinks taking this stuff to a grievance can show me a historic grievance settlement that demonstrates we would have had a strong win on 23m7...which was rolled in with the batch size changes. The last time I thought we had a clear grievance win, the settlement paid be about half an hour of pay. Yikes.
I'd never want to commit my (or my family's) time to union work. The best I can do is pay attention to candidates running to represent me and engage them in their official role. I'm lucky enough to trust my rep, who has always been responsive and informative when I've reached out to him. I trust the way he thinks and makes decisions. I want to continue to have excellent representation, which will only happen when good people sign up to serve their constituents. I called my rep the same hour this agreement was made public (furious), and I asked questions and listened to the details. In the end, the situation was complex - as are most things folks here try to oversimplify - and I'm not certain there was low hanging fruit that the loudest complainers think was so obviously missed by SK and the scheduling committee. And as far as I know, a majority of the MEC with far more information than I have made the judgement call to support the agreement.
I'm all ears - this agreement was egresious why, exactly? What is your supporting evidence that we could have achieved significantly more, on a timeline that wouldn't have ceded significant unaccounted-for losses in pilot pay? What percentage of pilots didn't want batch limitations? (I don't know the answer but would love to). Some folks have claimed there is a sweet spot in batch sizes...but who decides what that is? Someone who needs another hour to make an airport run happen or someone who needs a day of coordination to line up a nanny?
As one rep told me, there were no guardrails on 23M7. The company could have used it days or even weeks in advance to cover trips. Additionally, the company didn't have to come to the table with a grievance settlement. They could have ignored it and forced it into arbitration because they knew there were no notes that said 23M7 wasn't to be used that way. They didn't. We got a deal.
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,890
So while I agree that the 23M7 “guardrails” settlement is probably the least bad that we were able to obtain, the Scheduling Committee’s claims that the solution to reduce nuisance calls from large ARCOS batch sizes by utilizing Auto Acknowledge was total BS. #lipstick #pig
#25
#27
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2021
Posts: 183
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2023
Posts: 1,232
Uhh, quite simple. Occam's razor. The company wanted it. We got nothing in return. MEC Chairman in the past have been booted for less. How DH is still the chair baffles me. Actually I know why, but I'm not going to post it here becasue I'll get another infraction.
PS -still waiting to hear what we're going to do about "the letter", you know the emergency meeting DALPA had on Oct 27th to discuss......crickets.
PS -still waiting to hear what we're going to do about "the letter", you know the emergency meeting DALPA had on Oct 27th to discuss......crickets.
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,067
Uhh, quite simple. Occam's razor. The company wanted it. We got nothing in return. MEC Chairman in the past have been booted for less. How DH is still the chair baffles me. Actually I know why, but I'm not going to post it here becasue I'll get another infraction.
PS -still waiting to hear what we're going to do about "the letter", you know the emergency meeting DALPA had on Oct 27th to discuss......crickets.
PS -still waiting to hear what we're going to do about "the letter", you know the emergency meeting DALPA had on Oct 27th to discuss......crickets.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post