I agree and this is something that needs to be fixed ASAP.

I watched a pilot get 4x 23M7 payments in a span of 24 hours.

I’m all for extracting money from our contract but let’s spread the love.

it’s not even spread the love. If you hit a payment, you should be removed from the M7 list for the footprint of that trip plus associated post trip rest. Because you were made whole, and you would have been Ineligible if you were out flying that trip you were already made whole from.

Exactly…

10

Anyone that gets a good deal should not, unless I get mine too. /s 🙄

That’s disingenuous and you know it. But honestly your opinion, and others that share it, is just a small minority. It appears obvious to me that the vast majority of pilots don’t support MULTIPLE 23M7 payments on the same day and/or footprint. It’s just common sense. We don’t need to give anything back to the company, but we do need to make the rewards of our contract apply in a REASONABLE manner while respecting seniority. You know, kinda like applies to pretty much all other premium flying.

So how would it work? DALPA calls the company and says "hey, I know we start Section 6 in a few weeks, and you have your own burning needs, but could you help us out first? We need you to allocate IT resources to reprogram and test icrew to level 23M7 payouts. No, we're not going to address anything else. thanks." They'd shake their heads, laugh, and hang up.

And even if the MEC decided to try that while getting ready for section 6, and even if the company (being the rational, big-hearted employer they are) decided to do us a solid and say yes.... as soon as it got programmed in...around December (2027), Marcal or someone else will be here bitching that it's not fair, he's on track to lose 150% of last year's earnings.... and 23M7 needs to be leveled by the day and not the occurrence. I can think of several other potential snags in how that leveling would be applied. You've been here a while, I'm sure you can see some problems applying M7 leveling, too.

So yes. By default, it's a wind the clock issue.

Yes you are. Have you checked the logs lately?

How about talking to your reps instead of approaching our next vote uninformed.

Let's look at some data from 23m7 awards last month. Y-axis height is randomized for visibility:

https://i.imgur.com/FzcWXaW.jpeg

https://i.imgur.com/vP74rn8.jpeg

Source: Someone on widget scheduling FB, not me.

CS doesn't only award 23m7 to the first person in line. Coverage goes down the list like a roulette wheel until they run out of time and push the stop button. So no one here should be blaming anyone on the list, everyone is eligible to catch some of this bassackwards band-aid compensation the company has chosen to utilize in lieu of VAS, IT automation, and more staffing. Keep this value within the pilot group and let the company figure out how they want to fix their batch size giveaway. Don't eliminate AA or OOBWS unless every one of those blue dots is fairly captured elsewhere in a mutually beneficial change.

What is the Y-axis variable in that chart?

You rang?

Unlike most, I am not advocating for any improvement to the 23M7 award process at all.

23M7 is a symptom of the disease and the disease is AA.

All I want is no AA or batch sizes - exactly what QS offers. I just want it earlier in the process. I'm assuming you are in total opposition to QS, right?

I don't think it matters. It just provides spacing so dots for the same pilot don't overlap each other.

It looks like a result of a countif() function. So the only way to show a count of, say "3" on a chart, need to add vertical space to accommodate each dot.

The Y axis could be day of the month, but you'd still have overlapping dots for multiple M7 on a single day. So, the Y is probably random like the poster said it was.