|
Originally Posted by OOfff
(Post 3975817)
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. |
Originally Posted by Frank Grimes
(Post 3975847)
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 |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 3975851)
I told you already. Do you think the average line pilot thinks the 23M7 usage currently taking place knows that it is compliant and that this MOU did nothing to change that? Was the objective to end the practice that goes against precedent?
|
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 3975850)
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.
And again, if they only - or nearly so - GFB pilots over 120, that's a dead giveaway they are not acting in good faith. It's hard to imagine a more obvious 'hand in the cookie jar' moment with the system board. My understanding is when they previously did a GFB-pallooza, they found almost everyone was able to verify, and so abandoned the effort due to cost per 'failed note' (which only results in not getting paid for the absence). I just don't see GFB as a viable substitute for the verification window. Quite the opposite, in fact, since a "zoom doc/NP/PA" isn't hard to find and produce a note. And once you are past 3 days (or successful GFB note), there is literally zero disincentive to NOT stay out longer. Especially as May rolls around. [For the record, I'm not encouraging anything, just observing human behavior] No, I think they get the QS programmed NLT this spring... |
Originally Posted by immolated
(Post 3975854)
Until they run out of reserves, they still use 23m7 to skip directly to SC all the time. Look at daily trip coverage and see how many reserves have been assigned same-day.
|
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 3975793)
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. A grievance is writing the company into compliance + a penalty |
Originally Posted by Frank Grimes
(Post 3975847)
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 NOT the problem |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 3975866)
CS staffing and lack of automation is the problem. This was never an issue when each person was called individually. The excessive use of 23M7 creating the farming industry is also the problem. They brought this on themselves.
|
Originally Posted by FangsF15
(Post 3975856)
A CP absolutely cannot tell you what Doc to use. What "doc" a pilot chooses to use, and why, is completely up to them. The CP also must tell you the reason(s) they, in good faith, have to ask what your illness is in general terms.
And again, if they only - or nearly so - GFB pilots over 120, that's a dead giveaway they are not acting in good faith. It's hard to imagine a more obvious 'hand in the cookie jar' moment with the system board. My understanding is when they previously did a GFB-pallooza, they found almost everyone was able to verify, and so abandoned the effort due to cost per 'failed note' (which only results in not getting paid for the absence). I just don't see GFB as a viable substitute for the verification window. Quite the opposite, in fact, since a "zoom doc/NP/PA" isn't hard to find and produce a note. And once you are past 3 days (or successful GFB note), there is literally zero disincentive to NOT stay out longer. Especially as May rolls around. [For the record, I'm not encouraging anything, just observing human behavior] No, I think they get the QS programmed NLT this spring... |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 3975866)
CS staffing and lack of automation is the problem. This was never an issue when each person was called individually. The excessive use of 23M7 creating the farming industry is also the problem. They brought this on themselves.
The MOU wasn’t meant to fix the M7 program. It was meant to fix sick calls and bringing some semblance of order to the IA drama that has unfolded. None of this would be a problem if there wasn’t as much open time. No one as been able to explain where it’s coming from. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:45 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands