100% this. I was extremely concerend when I heard DH make statements about the 'positive engagement' (or somehting like that) with the company garnering more wins... Having a good relationship is a good thing, sure, when there is mutual respect. But it put my guard up that we might be going back to old failed strategies.

Someone recently posted about Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the arena". I'm aslo reminded of his mantra, "Walk softly, but carry a big stick."

To compare DH to the way it used to be, or call him a "M" is actully funny, but does a disservice because it makes light of how bad it really was back in the day. People saying that are either playing politics, or have zero idea what it was like back in the day because they weren't here or just weren't paying attention. Imagine being told you have to pass a sub-standard TA in a good economy because "the black swans are comming". I'm willing to bet everything you heard was hearsay because of politics. DH was a radical at one of those "ugly" councils, and to lump him, or most anyone (some exceptions) on the MEC in the last 4-6 years in with the TA 1 crowd is just silly and actually disrespects how much of a turnaround we've made from the way it used to be.

It used to be 99% all company, all the time. Maybe a one off dissenter, and you can bet they made him sit in the corner. Then after the merger, you had the few odd-ball northie guys, but they were hardly an obstacle. Major changes to the PWA via LOAs were done with a wave of the hand with zero input from the membership. Finally a few more people with a different outlook got elected, and things started to change. You can't believe how shrill the old guard got when there was actually people with a different opinion and had the voice to say it. They are still bitter about it, so when the TA 1 crowd gets involved, or puts their name on anything, they're playing the long game, and they have long memories.

Whoa there, where did I call him a Moakie? I didn’t.

I was here for the whole TA1 sell job and grass roots uprising, recalls, “PEB!!!”, etc. This whole post above is putting words into my mouth.

We are on the same team, and the same side. Educating the following generation of pilots is critical. ⅓ of the list has been hired in the last 3 years, and over half have only seen one contract cycle.

I know that...I always called the company before filing an ACE....that's what I told all my new hire mentees....that's what I told every Captain I flew with...becuase that is what the MEC emails and Sched alerts were telling us to do in order to stop the clock.

So if ACE did have the ability to notify the company, then the MEC should have either a) published guidance that said "hey everyone, ACE now counts for official notification...stop calling the company and bogging them down" or b) kept their traps shut (which is what I think they did) becuase they still wanted the pilots to attempt to take care of things at the lowest level (which normally also resulted in the fasted way to get paid).

So if B is true, then implying that STS won't initially have the ability to notify the company as Fangs is highlighting, is a moo point...if ACE could notify the company but the MEC wanted us to keep calling them directkly, why would STS change that?

That's my point....IMO, ALPA never told us to stop calling...I can't find a single SA or MEC Alert email that told pilots they could stop calling because ACE now had ability to notify the company and stop the clock.

So if they never told us to stop calling (which i feel is true), then mentioning STS won't notify the company and implying (instead of just saying it directly) that everyone needs to go back to calling just doesn't make sense to me.

I never stopped calling and I like to think I'm slighly above well below average at staying up to speed with ALPA info espectially sched alerts.

It’s a fair question. I think the answer lies in your b). They want the pilots to take charge of their own pay if possible, and not leave it to ALPA to do for them, unless they hit a wall. IOW, solve it before it becomes an ACE/STS report, thus not bogging down the Sched committee. It’s a fair position for ALPA to take, not to babysit 17300 pilots’ pay cards. Publicizing that ACE (or eventually STS?) can stop the clock might make pilots lazy(er).

Keep your guard up. They're already on the move and will be taking advantage of any opportunites they can get. Lots of elections coming up.

I agree that punting the "notify the company / stop the clock" responsibklity to ALPA via ACE, or STS, or Sched DART, etc, is a bad idea....I agree that the pilots *should* attempt to fix things on their own at the lowest level which nornally results in getting paid faster.

If that is the case, then instead of beating around the bush via implying what STS can/can't do, just come right out and say it clear as day:
#1 call scheduler to fix
#2 submit pay inquiry (this also counts as notificaion to stop the clock)
#3 get CPO involved
#4 if 1-3 failed, then file STS to get ALPA involved.

ACE could notify but due to the backlog it was a risk for pilots to rely on it stopping the clock since it was likely it would exceed the 120 day window.

I don't think it's primarily to avoid "bogging down" the scheduling committtee. Addressing pay problems with the company first will have that impact as a byproduct, but that's not the primary factor.

It's making sure the company has some ownerhip and invests the man-hours necessary into fixing their own violations/processes before using dues dollars (in the form of ALPA scheduling volunteers) to fix it. Also, we'll get paid quicker if we can get it resolved with the company rather than wait for a dispute to be processed.

It would be great if the company actually paid their pilots on time, transparently, and without intervention...like every other Fortune 100 company seems to have figured out. Despite Gumm's "sincere" assurances, that appears nowhere close to fruition.

The ideal end state I think we can agree would be the company finally producing a modern, automatic pay system (perhaps verified by a violation-identifying watchdog software from DALPA) adequately robust and transparent enough to dramatically decrease the number of pay disputes/PWA violatoins, and thereby reducing the manning and expenditures required in the scheduling committee.