Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Hey, why not just have a seniority assignment before an inverse assignment? Let the pilots who Auto Accept and Auto Acknowledge go and fly the trips they've accepted and acknowledged in seniority order. Just put it on their line. If they need to use the proffer, then they call in (or electronically indicate) that they've made a mistake (child care, forgot and drank a beer, whatever) but 99% of the time just go fly the trip the pilot has AA and AA.

Our ***ASSOCIATION ****ED UP*** by allowing 23 M. 7. and now that the Association's action has proved unpopular with line pilots who are getting screwed we have some "powerful people" thinking they can decide what an unfair deal is and "take action against a pilot." ... wait, isn't that management's job, to discipline pilots?

So, a Rep writes he will "take action against pilots." I have questions.

Better yet, let us just fix the problem that the association's agreement with management created, please.

Originally Posted by crewdawg

A 23M7 counter would be a good idea. I also wouldn't be opposed to some close in timeline that skips OOBWS. I use OOBWS, but I don't auto accept and then never reject stuff I'm not going to fly. Watched as a trip sat on three different O lines with no rejection before going IA. These guys are just fishing. Off course I'd prefer they start coverage sooner and have a more automated process.

Originally Posted by Herkflyr

And then you will have many pilots submitting blanket GS requests (with zero desire to fly one) just to get the batch size penalty payments. Many have done so...and will again.

So...how do we have a system that allows for pilots to have blanket WS and GS requests in, in case an ideal trip pops up...while still keeping it a proffer (GS were not a proffer pre-ARCOS; if you answered the phone and you were otherwise legal to fly the trip as published, it was yours and you were obligated to fly it)...while not incentivizing sharpshooters and open time farmers to Gumm up the system with deliberate slowdown efforts, just to either "stick it to the company" or collect a 23.M.7 or ARCOS batch size violation payout--without which in the contract they likely would not have submitted a slip request to begin with?

I don't know the answer. As I have said before, there is an elegant solution out there. I am confident that the ALPA side, with enough brainstorming, can arrive at a great solution. We have some very smart pilots at this airline. Whether the "in over their heads" folks at the company will agree to something is another thing.

Originally Posted by Verdell

Yea, I'm still not with you here. You seem to be saying that credit for a RES pilot is phantom and worth nothing. And that's simply not true. RES credit can be tactically used to raise RAW score to achieve a new RAW bucket as an example. And to achieve RES FULL as I mentioned above.

RAW is a shifty formula, but just as an example, if you had a RAW of 70 and needed 80 to get to RAW bucket 2, you could probably YS a 1-day trip on an X-day (or any day for that matter) to achieve RAW 80 through the CROC and Credit. Then sail out of the rest of the month unused. But if the trip didn't pay Credit, CROC alone wouldn't get you to 80.

Otherwise, hell yea, pay me RES guarantee plus anything I fly, I'd be cool with that too.

Originally Posted by DeltaboundRedux

Lots of (interesting) pages about wants and gimmie-dats; what overriding leverage does the union have this time around for leverage?

Last time around the company was expanding post-covid at a very healthy clip and needed every pilot it could get it's hands on as all the majors were drawing as fast as they could from the same well.

Difficult to imagine this being a quick contract cycle.

Originally Posted by notEnuf

This isn't entirely true. Just like cracking a beer or kid's babysitter when called for an IA, there were ways out of it. It was effectively a proffer, we just used the daily trip coverage list to see it or called a buddy to check. Proffer and blankets can work together but it would take better automation and starting trip coverage in a timely manner. Those are company problems and company solutions.

Originally Posted by Herkflyr

You omitted the part when I said "if you were otherwise legal" for the trip. Fact was, if you had submitted a GS request, and scheduling called you and you answered the phone, and there was no other reason to say no (you certainly had the ability to crack open a beer etc) then you were obligated to fly it. Just like a next day WS used to be, in fact (for you new guys, it was weird: same day WS were always a proffer, next day were not (and both were covered with phone calls from scheduling) and beyond next were covered with the PCS system, as they are now.

But I agree that today's problems are the company's to solve. Good automation and tech should be sufficient. However, the number of pilots submitting blanket, month-long GS requests "just" to Gumm up the system, by putting everything on Auto Accept, then doing nothing after that...isn't zero. That doesn't help all of us.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

So, a Rep writes he will "take action against pilots." I have questions.

Originally Posted by SideStickMonkey

The union should absolutely be taking action against pilots that are willfully violating the contract and harming their fellow pilots who are adhering to the PWA.

This crap needs to stop.

Originally Posted by SVCTA

Oh, they give them a good, stern talking to! And according to the ALPA podcast, some people even pretend to feel JUST TERRIBLE about it!