Originally Posted by OOfff

what cost savings does the company get with a quick slip system?

Originally Posted by Speed Select

Why would the company agree to something that cost them more money? Versus, “don’t like us going straight to IA? Then tell your pilots to be disciplined union members and stop making side deals.” This whole situation arose, IMO, because some people opened CS’s eyes to “help me help you” solutions. I’ve been here more than a decade and find it hard to believe CS has had the GS/IA switcheroo trick up their sleeve the whole time, just waiting to use it.

Maybe I’m being a little cynical, but I presume we’ll be having the “we didn’t expect them to do that” discussion about this in a few months. On top of that, are we really “helping” the company right before we enter negotiations? Seems like a strategic misstep in solving a major “problem” just as we go into negotiations.

Originally Posted by immolated

how were you eliminating IA calls before?


With current unlimited IA batches, sitting on hold for 30 minutes, only to see it go to someone out of order is a pretty big burden. Happened to me yesterday, again. No thanks.

Now, you can actually hold any of those, thanks to the counter. And it still costs the company 300%. Or they can skip coverage and use the method you want to keep, and pay 400%.


Good, let them. You're missing the cost of eliminating the GS trigger. That's a huge gain for us. The second order effects of credit surfers not picking up single time is going to be big if everything goes to QS now. Astronomical QOL gain right there if your fears play out. I would love to stay below trigger and pick up 2-3 QS per month and call it a day. That's not a senior game either, everyone on the list could do it thanks to the counter.



Several of us were engaging our reps in the last few months and knew changes were coming. See the other thread about bypassed GS. Lots of input was being passed.

Obviously none of the actual negotiating is done in public.

Maybe you were in the group wanting to sit and do nothing expecting a 400% or better concession in C26. I don't think that was going to happen. Waiting to do nothing while pilots were harmed by side-deals and out-of-order assignments would have put us in a worse negotiating position in the future because your average facebook pilot was desperate for a quick fix. The only people who wanted to keep the mess in place were the side-dealers, or pilots in categories not affected daily by this.

Feel free to engage your rep, this can all still be tweaked in C26. Next summer will be a great test run. The company has an even bigger cost now to not fixing their slow coverage process. And they're required to finish an entire step of coverage before skipping, so the process will be even slower. That cherry on top is a great bit of extra negotiating capital moving forward that I wasn't expecting.

Skipped coverage now costs 400% with no concessions, and we settled the sick call grievance in our favor, also with no concessions. I don't know what you were hoping for but that's one of the best outcomes, IMO. We're in a better spot for C26 and didn't even spend any negotiating capital yet.

Originally Posted by Speed Select

Why would the company agree to something that cost them more money? Versus, “don’t like us going straight to IA? Then tell your pilots to be disciplined union members and stop making side deals.” This whole situation arose, IMO, because some people opened CS’s eyes to “help me help you” solutions. I’ve been here more than a decade and find it hard to believe CS has had the GS/IA switcheroo trick up their sleeve the whole time, just waiting to use it.

Maybe I’m being a little cynical, but I presume we’ll be having the “we didn’t expect them to do that” discussion about this in a few months. On top of that, are we really “helping” the company right before we enter negotiations? Seems like a strategic misstep in solving a major “problem” just as we go into negotiations.

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44

I am glad the union did something. What was happening wasn’t good for anyone. Maybe the junior pilots making deals at everyone else’s expense, but screw them. They shouldn’t have been doing those deals to begin with.

Originally Posted by Khantahr

I guess if you think answering the phone genuinely caused them any reluctance to hit the IA button, then this might be a small win for them.

I very much doubt that though. They're answering the phone constantly anyway, I'd be shocked if any one of them thought, "I really want to just send this out as an IA, but I don't want to answer the phone, so I won't."

I do agree that we screwed up on the automation side. We should only have given them a month. Even that is double what it should take. Someone familiar with the system could implement it in a day, they could test the snot out of it over the course of a week. The automation failure is temporary though, and has no impact on the overall effect of the MOU.

Originally Posted by Whoopsmybad

in my category, it was very obvious the senior guys were making the deals. IAs rarely dropped below 50% in seat.

Originally Posted by OOfff

yeah, deal making was everywhere. i had a ~30% in seat coworker sending messages to tracking asking for reroutes.

Originally Posted by OOfff

yeah, which is better. it makes it into a step that respects seniority instead of a free-for-all…and makes the tracking easier

Originally Posted by Speed Select

I’m really being presumptuous here, but I’ve seen a lot of retired military, now juniorish pilots “problem solve” outside their lane. I’ll leave it at that. As a fairly kinda seniorish military officer (now retired), I identify this behavior as “innovative solutions” that the AF has been pushing for the last 10 years. Anyway, my point is pilots are often their own worst enemy, the company knows this, and I suspect there is another unexpected shoe to drop in making this deal.