But auto accept is entirely within the bounds of the contract. Anything you can do by typing away on icrew for a couple minutes is just being smart, and entirely within bounds.

Calling CS and looking for ways to circumvent the coverage sequence isn’t.

That’s the difference in my opinion.

is this a case of “we didn’t think we’d do that?”

Not giving up batch sizes in the first place? A set QS implementation timeline? I'm not going to act like negotiating a fixed day would have been a simple feat, but having an end is sight would probably help mitigate these issues. It's timeline of "soon" isn't giving anyone a warm fuzzy that a fix is near and order will be restored soon.



The last sentence is key. In your (and my) opinion there is a difference, but I can see why others don't see the difference. Yes, it's within the bounds of the contract, but it certainly isn't within the spirit. How about this, we even have an "any available pilot" option. Legal vs spirit? I don't like the precedent it sets, so this needs to be fixed sooner than later. Like it or not, it will get worse the longer this goes.

You say this sarcastically, but it’s true. No lookback has resulted in substantially more sick calls, and the company *hates* pilots using sick time. Quick slips will also make things much more efficient for the company - they know they’ll be able to cover a trip in 12 minutes, whereas today they still need to be able to answer the phone for an IA.

They want them implemented, but it does take time.

If YS < 18 hours to report is a proffer, even res pilots could get 23m7 in theory?

I say it sarcastically because we have no set time horizon. Maybe I'll eat crow when we get QS in Jan or Feb...



I believe so, we've had a reserve doing this well before it became the thing to do.

IROPs?
 

Funny feeling after I read the latest IROPs email… weather and several open trips created IROPs… too bad they didn’t start ANY coverage steps until 0300 today. Come on, what’s the big picture and what is the entire pilot group missing here?

Maybe they shouldn't have stopped hiring in April. "They" say we are staffed just fine

What data do you have to support that claim?

If management believes there is an uptick in sick calls, unrelated to cold/flu season, then they’ll simply increase GFB calls. We have two sick verification programs. Suspending one without suspending the other was functionally useless.

But changed the language permanently to include all sorts of medical professionals which is a HUGE benefit to the group