Yes, but it’s also the worst combination… no batch sizes and no autoaccepts… so we are worse off than when we started except a few senior people will clean up on 23m7s.

 

What better, non-concessionary solution do you propose (that the MEC wasn’t able to cook up)?

The solution that was agreed upon in 25-05 preserves PWA value. That’s what matters most as we go into section 6.

 

The solution wasn’t agreed upon by the pilot group because there was no vote. The system is completely broken, it will be completely broken with QS’s with unlimited batch sizes and no autoaccepts.

We need to go back to batch sizes and no autoaccepts (except for specific exceptions like accept while on duty). There needs to be an agreed upon formula for batch sizes vs time to report. For example, more than 24 hours out, batch size of 1. Maybe from 12-24 hours batch size of 2, etc.

The only thing we should be negotiating is how far out the ramp up happens and how big the batch sizes can get. Maybe you can have some reductions once it passes through sleeping hours. Maybe it’s an absolute number or it’s based upon percentage of category size or a combination of the two. We can choose to keep the batches at 1 or 2 until fairly close in and then rapidly increase the batch size or we can have it grow more gradually farther out. It’s all up for discussion.

At the end of the day short notice trips need to get covered and the only way to do that is with calling more people at once. There is no other way.

As mentioned before, at 12 min per autoaccept that’s 5 pilots per hour. Atl has categories of 600+ people. Trips will never reach the bottom half of that category no matter what, as it stands.

A sliding batch size scale vs time to report, based upon an agreed upon formula is a sensible way to minimize disturbance to pilots while ensuring close in trips are covered in time.

 

Which means that a trip that may have been accepted by a pilot near the bottom for 100% pay now gets covered by a QS + M7 at 300% pay. That’s a company problem, not a pilot problem. QS will be accessible to many junior pilots, as those senior to them won’t be able to tie up that process with auto-accept.

Management will almost certainly seek a solution like the one you describe in section 6. It solves many of their problems. Whether it’s acceptable will depend on the quid.

The one area where I DO agree with you is that MOU 25-05 most definitely should have gone to MEMRAT. That needs to be true of any LOA, MOU, or settlement that modifies the PWA in any way. That said, 25-05 would have passed easily.

 

I lost out on 2 trips today via IA that started with deadheads to my base. I immediately tried to get ahold of scheduling once calls came in. I never did talk to any schedulers for either one. Sat on hold for over 30 minutes both times before the trips were covered. One was covered by a pilot 8000 numbers junior to me and other one 4000 numbers junior. Meanwhile I’m too junior to get free 23.M.7 money.

I AM LOSING OUT ON TENS OF THOUSANDS. Majority of our pilots are. IT IS COMPLETE BULL**** and middle managers should be fired over this fiasco.

I also can’t get a GS because the GS list never progresses since most trips covered by IA. I lose out everyway possible. At least a 2023 hire is getting premium trips that should have gone to me.

 

It’s both our problems. There are pilots for whom that trip might have worked for them who as it stands cannot pick it up. I 100% agree there is blame with the company but there are pilots also being harmed and it’s disingenuous to say we have nothing to do with it.

 

This is the source of the problem. I can empathize with the anger. I had a GS (which is a unicorn now) removed to send it out as a 23M7. That's just how it is now. It will stay this way because that anger will serve to divide the pilot group and pressure the MEC into a misstep in section 6. We need to be patient as frustrating as that will be.

 

Being able to pick up flying over vacation would work better for a lot of individual pilots as well. But we can’t, because a ban on flying over vacation is better for the PWA value and pilot group as a whole.

Freely allowing the company to pay out 200% less for a trip because it “works” for a junior pilot is insane. We would literally be handing money back to the company before entering what are likely to be contentious section 6 negotiations. Many of the problems you describe may get worked out in section 6, but for a price.

 

Lol, this almost exactly what we had, and gave away, we didn't get a choice back then either. This was all predictable. Lots of things needed to fix this, let's just hope we can secure that soon, because Hockey is right, while its a boon for some, many are losing out big time. Despite the mec email today, the longer it goes, the more deal making we'll see.

 

Yes I agree, but you are not taking into account that the distribution of funds is completely out of wack, and that this is causing a lot of angst among the pilot group and is absolutely causing division. What the result of this will be is anyone’s guess, but the longer it goes on the more untenable it will be.