MOU 25-05
12-08-2025 | 05:55 AM
#1451
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,330
Likes: 231
Go look at ATL NB, a vast majority of IA's are going to the bottom half of the list. I'm almost never close to ALV and haven't received an IA call in months. I can count on one hand, how many actually made it to my seniority in the last few months. Agree with you on all the rest.
I agree that making your own deals is the wrong attitude, but I understand how the deal makers don't see themselves as any different than the sudden rush of auto-accepter/M7 farmers. Both are just trying to score easy money when they otherwise wouldn't have.
I agree that making your own deals is the wrong attitude, but I understand how the deal makers don't see themselves as any different than the sudden rush of auto-accepter/M7 farmers. Both are just trying to score easy money when they otherwise wouldn't have.
Calling CS and looking for ways to circumvent the coverage sequence isn’t.
That’s the difference in my opinion.
12-08-2025 | 06:15 AM
#1453
Moderator
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,342
Likes: 347
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.
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.
Calling CS and looking for ways to circumvent the coverage sequence isn’t.
That’s the difference in my opinion.
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.
12-08-2025 | 06:28 AM
#1454
On Reserve
Joined: Feb 2023
Posts: 190
Likes: 81
They want them implemented, but it does take time.
12-08-2025 | 06:43 AM
#1456
Moderator
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,342
Likes: 347
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.
They want them implemented, but it does take time.
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.
12-08-2025 | 07:09 AM
#1457
On Reserve
Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
From: BE-20GT Captain/Check Airmen
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?
12-08-2025 | 07:14 AM
#1458
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 12,363
Likes: 904
12-08-2025 | 07:19 AM
#1459
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2022
Posts: 2,208
Likes: 963
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.
They want them implemented, but it does take time.
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.
12-08-2025 | 07:29 AM
#1460
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 12,363
Likes: 904
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.
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
