VAS is FDP so yes, you'd need 10 hours prior to starting the VAS. But then you are legal for any trip like a SC pilot. I'm pretty sure anyway. Been a bit since I've had to look at reserve rest rules.

The problem is tracking just dumps trips in OT without regard on if they will actually be covered or not. When we used VAS last year, most I saw were assigned trips illegally well ahead of the start of the VAS period. VAS was awarded then shortly after, they just received a regular OT assignment. This resulted in much IA pay to the VAS pilot. Also, maybe m7 pay but not sure on that part. This pay all happened after the fact after ALPA got involved.

I feel like that's the real reason the company doesn't use them. They can't figure out how to program the computer/train schedulers to look for a VAS pilot before building a 0*** rot. And not whatever reason they said at the Velvet that people didn't want them. They went senior when they were published. In a perfect world, a delay would spit out a flight that would go straight to the VAS and save the 0*** rotation from being published, or a pilot being rerouted. Reroutes are also legal to happen outside of the 23O ladder if a trip isn't put in OT (23L5, indirectly). If the trip doesn't go to OT though, and there is a VAS, it has to go to the VAS (23L2c). Currently, tracking builds that 0*** trip, scheduling doesn't do anything for an hour, maybe runs the TC for WS, then m7s or reroutes. 3 hours of VAS pay plus single pay per day seems way cheaper than an M7 AND an IA, but what do I know. And M7 + reroute just kicks the can to a new M7 and IA. Rinse and repeat.

 

source: texas1970 "The MOU further codified previous settlement agreements that the company had been violating"

Not my words but do you agree with this statement or not?

My point was that if this is true we wrote them into compliance. That was argued as the necessity for this agreement.

 

it further codified our and the company’s understanding of the rules.

you made the “written into compliance” claim repeatedly before that comment. so again, name anything that’s compliant now that was not compliant before.

 

ALPA by signing this agreement endorses the current situation until the company self certifies they have complied fully with the MOU. The question becomes, is the current situation compliant? Yes. Is it acceptable? Writing the company into compliance may have been an inflammatory choice of words be did they choose to endorse the 23M7 use the company is now exploiting? Yes, both now and later when/if QSs are implemented. So ALPA has agreed to continue to support the current policy and procedure as the norm. If that's not writing the company into compliance for their change in policy then I stand corrected. Are you satisfied with that explanation?

Now, what HAVE we achieved, not what might we achieve?

 

so for the fifth time, what is compliant now that was not compliant a few months ago?

the answer that you’re avoiding admitting is “nothing.” you don’t have to continue mischaracterizing what this mou does in order to disagree with it.

 

I would respectfully argue against this. The GF part of GFB is legally meaningful. If the company just starts a 'new norm' of calling (nearly) everyone who is sick, that is very clearly not in good faith. I would strongly expect ALPA to track this and file a grievance, which would be very difficult for the company to justify. If they run fast and loose with that, they run the risk of losing that provision in the contract, IMO. In the meantime, verification is suspended, which IMO is a high interest item for the company. They see that as a check on the use of borderline/illegitimate sick usage, and will want that back asap.

Clearly QHCP makes it easier on us, not sure how it makes easier on the company at all?

 

I think that is not true, and certainly won't be true the longer this goes on (on the domestic side at least; it is still fairly rare in the WB categories that aren't 7ER). It is not just the "farmers" getting a whole lot of 23.M.7 money for doing nothing that is going to create a lot of resentment. It is the fact that many mid-seniority pilots who used to get GS fairly predictably no longer can, while IAs and 23.M.7 payments go out to other pilots that aren't them. DALPA knows this. Everyone knows that the current status quo is not what was ever envisioned or desired at the negotiating table.

 

I fall in the category of upper middle seniority that could count on easy 2 day GS. Fly to trigger, add 21 hours GS pay. In October I managed to get IA that I was trying to GS. November no GS, but did manage a SS. We’ll see what December holds, but I haven’t done a GS since August. You used to see a trip coverage report of all G’s once reserves ran out. Now it’s all IA’s.

 

2) Does solve anything cause OOBWs is above SC with less than 18 hours to report
3) Doesn’t help with trips that pop up inside 2 days
4) Doesn’t help with trips that pop up inside 2 days
5) Doesn’t help with trips that pop up inside 2 days
6) Does solve anything cause OOBWs is above LC and SC with less than 18 hours to report
7) Automatic coverage doesn’t all of the sudden create a worm hole where going through OOBWS takes shorter than 12 minutes a person who has auto accept
8) That is the company’s fault, not CS…yet you blame CS.

Should I go on?
Auto accept is the problem

 

A CP can say go ahead and use the zoom doc and get me a GFB verification. If they use it for people over 120 that’s not as many and the cost makes it no deterrent. The company will easily pay the $25 and the pilots will take the path of least resistance. Why go to the ER when you can get it done over the phone in 10 minutes. The ”abusers” are enabled by not having to verify and the GFB not having a duration per GFB. It’s easier for all and risks becoming common place.