![]() |
Originally Posted by Whoopsmybad
(Post 4005644)
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.
Not for GS |
Originally Posted by LumberJack
(Post 4005700)
That is false. Maybe you weren't here before ARCOS.
GS and IA used to be covered manually one at a time and we had the best reliability. With proper staffing for both pilots and schedulers, more resilient trip construction, better usage of reserves, etc., the company solves their problem. |
Originally Posted by Gunfighter
(Post 4005715)
True for OOBWS
Not for GS But still shouldn’t be able to get a second one while still in the footprint of the first, regardless of step. |
Originally Posted by LumberJack
(Post 4005700)
That is false. Maybe you weren't here before ARCOS.
GS and IA used to be covered manually one at a time and we had the best reliability. With proper staffing for both pilots and schedulers, more resilient trip construction, better usage of reserves, etc., the company solves their problem. Could you imagine if those workers had 12 minutes per person to respond to these situations? No. It would be a public nightmare. They blast them all, they get assigned ASAP and things get fixed. It's only the most self entitled pilots that choose to put in slips, and then complain when those calls come in, that have somehow won the battle to put time restrictions in to the PWA. It is baffling, aggravating and the company will never, ever put that power back in any labor groups hands. Why? Because it is absolutely ridiculous and anathema to running a business. |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 4005683)
Its absolutely not a wind the clock issue because it’s not hurting the company and only hurting all downline pilots who should be getting them. It’s not a leverage issue. It’s a free side letter. Not doing it gives us zero extra leverage.
OG gloopy was way too realistic to claim that any side letter is "free." And also more cleverly verbose. Nothing is free with this management team. And it's not even "free" for them. The coding costs to level 23M7 are real, and probably significant. Also, there is no way they are going to run it manually. If they know it's something we want they'll squeeze us. Just like we better squeeze them with AA. While not doing it "gives us zero extra leverage," doing it would cost them leverage, if it's even an MEC negotiating priority. Which may not even be the case. A side letter needs to be signed by both parties. There is absolutely no reason the flight ops HMFIC would sign this. I'll put it another way: if the company approached the MEC tomorrow and asked for something outside section 6, while the pilots got nothing in return, would the MEC do it? I sure hope not, and if they did, it would probably result in some recalls. At least, I hope it would. |
Originally Posted by marcal
(Post 4005675)
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? |
Originally Posted by marcal
(Post 4005726)
It is baffling, aggravating and the company will never, ever put that power back in any labor groups hands. Why? Because it is absolutely ridiculous and anathema to running a business. Take what "power" from labor's hands? What on earth are you talking about? Under the RLA, their options are limited. Our job as labor is to collectively maximize benefits to the pilot group, and leave things better than when we got here, not "run a business." Are you still an LCP, by any chance? |
Originally Posted by Whoopsmybad
(Post 4005722)
You can argue semantics all you want, but it is the same. Biggest difference is a M7 WS can only get you to ALV then you can’t get more (in theory if they are actually doing it right) and GS is infinite.
But still shouldn’t be able to get a second one while still in the footprint of the first, regardless of step. In other words, whoops, your bad... :D |
Originally Posted by crewdawg
(Post 4005709)
Close-in WS are generally all I fly and I highly doubt I'll be getting 8-10 QS/month.
Hence why I say people who actually want to fly a WS, will have to call scheduling and tell them that they'll take the trip if they run it. Quite a few trips have gone IA with 5-10 hours to report, that I'd have gladly flown W if they had actually run the step. In my small category, even with the recent IA mess, there has rarely been more than 5-10 guys with a WS in for such trips. For us, it's OOBWSers that gum it all up. |
Originally Posted by StoneQOLdCrazy
(Post 4005732)
Another pro-management screed. Incredible.
Take what "power" from labor's hands? What on earth are you talking about? Under the RLA, their options are limited. Our job as labor is to collectively maximize benefits to the pilot group, and leave things better than when we got here, not "run a business." Are you still an LCP, by any chance? There's definitely talking points that are making the rounds. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:12 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands