I’ve said the same thing myself many times. What’s your point?

The implementation of 25-05 would solve many of hockey’s issues without giving our leverage away.

We have pilots here publicly proposing new LOAs when management hasn’t even honored the one they already signed.

 

The cheese is big FOR SOME PEOPLE. And it’s almost impossible to “go find it” unless you are extremely senior or lucky enough to get through. You are extremely disingenuous with your arguments stomping your feet thinking this is a company only problem.

Leverage is only real leverage when it is mostly one sided. I really thing you are overestimating what you think we have.

But I do talk to my reps, a lot, about my concerns. We know you don’t. So there is that.

 

Bless your heart.

What if staffing went up tomorrow and premium went down. Is that still “lost pay that they’ll never be able to recoup”?

Tell management to implement 25-05 if you want it fixed. No more LOAs/MOUs before the next contract.

 

What is 25-05 going to do besides make IAs seniority based using QS? Fixes nothing about the coverage ladder that is completely broken.

 

That’s where our leverage is and where management’s cost problem is continually growing. Why are you hell bent on fixing management’s issue for them?

25-05 restores order and seniority to the process, solving most pilot complaints, IF management ever upholds their end of the deal and implements QS.

 

Just to be clear it’s an asinine scam. I’ve changed nothing. Just because it’s contractually legal doesn’t mean it’s not a scam. It steals from whoever would have rightfully gotten it next.

 

But doesn't our leverage come from the pilot group also being a unified front? We're clearly very divided on the issue of 23M7. The same way theres pressure on the company to lower costs, there's pressure on our reps from the pilot group to fix this issue.

 

I'm not actually sure they're telling the full story there. I'm pretty sure it's actually 4 hours if you're not used, and 3 if you are used.

When the contract first came out, we had a lot of discussions here about it because it is a pretty nice incentive. Unfortunately the company has not offered it except for right now. Here's the recap:

Section 23.S.2.c.2 defines 6 short calls as the maximum subject to some other stipulations. Exception 1 says,
"A reserve pilot may be converted to short call in a bid period more times than shown in Section 23 S. 2. c. 2) pursuant to a yellow slip(s) that is awarded after the pilot has already completed the number shown in Section 23 S. 2. c. 2)."

Now, the reserve guarantee gets bumped up 1 hour if you do that. That is pay and credit. See Section 4 C.1, Exception 4 :

"The reserve line guarantee of a pilot who is converted to additional short call periods under Section 23 S. 2. c. 2) Exception one will be increased by one hour for each additional short call period."

Next, there is a total of 2 hours of pay, no credit associated with yellow slipping each short call over 6. See Section 23 S.3.b.

"A reserve pilot who has been awarded and converted to a short call period(s) in excess of Section 23 S. 2. c. will receive 2:00 pay, no credit per excess short call period, in addition to any other form of pay for the bid period."

Finally, there is additional pay, no credit for being assigned any short call period and not performing any flying. See Sec. 4.H.3

"A reserve pilot will receive one hour of pay, no credit for each short call period completed during which the pilot does not perform any flying."

 

If he’s like me, he’s losing out on about $10k per month. That makes it our issue, not management’s. They seem content to walk all over our PWA.

 

That kind of thinking is exactly what got us the batch size giveaway.

Management wants to divide and conquer the pilot group, then rush the MEC to a Band-Aid deal that will eliminate their M7 costs before they grow any worse. If we let them win, then we’ve all shot ourselves in the knee right before what will be a LONG section 6.

The short term fix for the pilot group was already signed (25-05). Management needs to implement what they already agreed to. If they continue to fail to do so, then why pursue further talks with a management team that is clearly acting in bad faith?