Ah..."greed slips." I haven't heard that term since around late 2000, when a bunch of almost historically STUPID pilots thought that they--and they only--were the proper determiners of what kind of PWA-sanctioned flying a pilot could or could not pursue.

Were you one of those? For a history lesson, read about the "49ers" whom the company sought to sue, and DALPA had to fight for to keep their jobs. For an even greater example of pilot lemming-like behavior that didn't work out well, see "APA sickout" from the late 90s. Almost "cosmically" stupid stuff there--but cheered on mightily on certain pilot message boards--until the company took the union to court and the judge fined the union $50 million (eventually the company forgave the penalty, but you better believe that the wildcat sickout cost the union a whole lot of leverage for a long time).

So (and this coming from someone who may fly a GS about once a year) what "should" a pilot fly? Who determines that? You? Should the company staff such that zero GS are ever passed out, even in the worst IROPS? I think we both agree that the original idea behind a GS was so that the company could "surge" during IROPS, and not to be used as a tool for day to day operations. But, that ship has sailed. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to fly a GS. Contact your rep, suggest contractual changes to staffing, etc. Do you have as much disdain for your fellow pilots that you fly with, as you seem to on this message board?

 

Whoa, there. Calling them "greed slips" is a bit much. There are no pilots on furlough. There has always been, and will always be Green Slips (and now, SS and QS). There has never, ever been a time when there hasn't. Not in the last 2.5 decades anyway.

You clearly disagree, but I submit the vast majority of the pilot group has a problem with both super senior 23M7 Farmers gobbling up (nearly) all the cash, as well as IA's going out wholesale, ingnoring seniority. I vehemently disagree that I am not "harmed" by a GS that was about to come to me, going out instead as an IA to who-know-where in the SL. I'm honestly shocked that anyone would argue otherwise. And regardless of whether it's actually me (there have been some that 100% would have come to me) or not, somebody 100% was harmed. Full stop.

We can argue and disagree about whose "problem" it is to solve, but I think it's obtuse to cross our arms and stomp our feet looking solely at the company. The fact is, we may not like their solution (we certainly haven't so far), so it is in our interest to find mutually agreeable solutions in section 6.

Hopefully, this new ARCOS automation will be effective and without hidden landmines. Hopefully, QS will (eventually) 'fix' the IA part of the problem and return that premium to an orderly seniority-based outcome. There are other iterative steps that can and should be taken, like leveling out 23M7 down the list somehow, and unifying the counter for SS/GS/QS.

 

No, not getting a green slip does not materially damage or have an adverse affect on someone, therefore they are not ‘harmed.’ The contract was not followed, but nobody took money out of your bank account. If you need that premium pay because you’ve structured your life in such a way that you can’t survive without it, that is your own fault.

You can be angry and indignant and frustrated and outraged that the contract wasn’t followed (and rightfully so) but not getting something you never had in the first place does not ‘harm’ someone.

Who cares if nobody is on furlough? Squealing about ‘your’ green slip makes people look ridiculous and greedy. I’m still not interested in concessions to the PWA, which is the only thing I care about. I don’t care about 23m7 farmers (of which I am not one), green slippers, or IA takers. People can feel free to screech and squeal about whatever they want, but don’t trash the PWA in your haste to get ‘your’ greed slip.

 

Company decides to stop contributing 17% to my DC, but I never had it in the first place, so I'm not harmed. That's your logic right?

 

By your logic no one is owed 23M7 or IA pay either.

The premium pay exists because that is how the company has decided to run the operation. We can’t change that. That premium pay is either paid out voluntarily via seniority preference where everyone who volunteers for extra flying gets a piece of the pie or we do what’s happening now which is violating the PWA (which is what 23M7 payments are) and disregarding the contract to the benefit the few that harms the many.

There are many months where I don’t even put a GS in but for the months I do I want my seniority honored per the PWA.

 

I would not. Hopefully we get to vote on it next time.

 

Saying the farmers are following the contract is like having your little sibling hovering a quarter inch from your face saying "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you. Mom said not to touch you so I'm not touching you".

And again. I'm still waiting for anyone to explain to me how this is leverage on our side. Because QS is not going to stop the 23M7 farming now that it's been codified that CS can't move to the next step of coverage before identifying the harmed pilot. We got back seniority assigned premium flying at the effective cost of giving away auto accept. We gave away GS just to stop IA's

 

Did you forget the part where they are still paying at least 3x?

A birdie on the 4th floor told me they are in all out panic about our block to pay ratio cratering this year, and mahogany row has taken a keen interest as to why.

Id much rather hold our cards than theirs.

I’d call that leverage.

 

If this is what it takes to get them to stop with their cavalier attitude toward the contract (what's an SIL/not a violation...), then I'm all for it. Let's just hope we can get something good in return before some of the pilot group can give it away for nothing.

 

No one is trying to give it away for nothing. SK said yesterday the same thing. But blindly thinking it’s only a company problem is stupid thinking. There is going to have to be something that has a mutual benefit to fix the problem, because our coverage ladder is broken and no longer exists.