yeah, i readily admit i was just going on context from other posts there. i regrettably know little about the alpa policy manual

 

what easy button? how is the qs with its restrictions “easier” than the current ia free-for-all?

 

Are these insane time cards from 23M7 farmers getting paid for WS above the WS pickup limit?

The real question I'm driving at is, under the current system, are the WS "farmers" actually getting paid above their WS pickup limit via 23M7?

Because if so, this MOU, in its attempt to curtail these types of 23M7 payments (in excess of WS pickup limit) and force automation/accountability to enforce the WS pickup limit, is a win.

To put it another way, if currently a single pilot or just a few pilots are amassing WS 23M7 payments beyond their pickup limit, than enforcing the limit (which the MOU intends to do) isn't just a financial penalty to the company. It means excess use of 23M7 is finally (correctly) timing-out pilots (via the WS pickup limit), spreading the payments down the list, and making fewer pilots available to WS. That's all net gain for the pilot group as a whole, and furthers our leverage against abuse of 23M7.

 

Neither do senior FOs who bid LCP trips during busy training cycles. Who cares?

Our contract has plenty of nice carrots in it for those who choose to remain senior in category. Items like these also serve to make higher paying categories less senior and more accessible to those who desire them. We don’t need to dilute seniority any further than we already have.

 

I do think there is a difference between m7 farming and bidding LCP.

 

"Arbitrarily demand." That's not true at all. The PWA prohibits them from doing a GFB based on the frequency or duration of the occurrences, so it's actually pretty narrow in scope, which is one of the reasons people say things like, "I've only gotten one GFB in my career." With that being true, enhancing the verification requirements are huge, and I hope to see further advancements in 26.

 

The contract doesn’t place any limitations on the reason for a GFB, other than amount of sick used and frequency of occurrences. About 3 years ago, when GFB use was hitting its highest levels, pilot leaves had a lengthy list of “reasons” to issue a GFB. Sick within a week of a holiday, sick before / after a long period of time off, sick before / after very little time off, sick before / after training, sick before / after vacation, sick after trying to PD a trip (or posting to the swap board), sick after a WS, sick after a GS, sick after a reserve assignment — just to name a few. Virtually any sick call can trigger a contractually valid (in the company’s eyes) reason for a GFB.

They’ve wisely scaled back GFB use since then, but my point stands that as long as we have GFB language in the contract, the company can effectively nullify our lookback / verification requirements (aside from the 50-hour GFB exemption) at any time.

 

Sure it does. The CPO has to tell you all the reason(s), within 3 days of calling sick. And seeing as though there were questions on the survey as to how many GFB's you've had, I have no doubt ALPA has all the ammo/data they need to push back hard on the company if they try a mass-GFB campaign. Plus, once we are in Section 6, status quo applies. Openers are 5ish months away.

I think you are underestimating the GF part of GFB (as well as the spare time each CPO has to squeeze one drop of turnip juice out). Ramping up mass GFB in the current environment would be a glaringly obvious error, easy to prove.

 

I know a guy a few years ago that got a GFB just because he was sick during Oshkosh Airventure. He had a trip that reported late Thursday afternoon. Walking back to the campground after the night airshow on Wednesday he tripped over a large tie down stake. He hobbled back to the campground and on Thursday morning his foot was twice the size and he couldn't put weight on it or move the ankle. After a visit to the local urgent care he called in sick. He couldn't fly the airplane out of Oshkosh due to the injury so he stayed until Sunday to give it some time to heal. During the day on Friday he received a voicemail which he didn't see until after office hours from the CPO assistant. He called back on Monday and the assistant was irate and the conversation ended with a GFB. He emailed the form to the urgent care physician who was not an MD and they took a few weeks to fill out the form and mail it back with an original signature. I don't think he ever did get paid for the trip and I have no idea if the company accepted the form. I don't think there was any punishment either.

 

I would say yes. Since a GFB is not allowed to be triggered solely based on frequency or duration of occurrences, in practice this meant CPOs were using them when people were calling out sick next to vacation days, APDs, holidays, etc. These instances often happen to be the most innopportune time to try to get a sick note. Say, on a vacation in a remote/foreign area, maybe with spotty or zero wifi or over the holidays when places are closed. Admittedly, this MOU radically improves some of the logistical issues with GFB, but for extensive travellers like myself who make full use of the flight benefits, I've been in many sick situations where I was praying a GFB wouldn't happen and I can see that still being the case now.

And if this example is too niche, I will posit that the biggest issue of all is just being hassled to get one while ill. It's the last thing I'd want to be doing while sick.

Third, CPOs were using GFBs at different rates. It is well known (or at least was) that if you are a NYC based pilot the likelihood of getting a GFB was higher, and the implication was that the more junior and probationary folk of our ranks were going to be easy targets of harassment. I don't think this is right.

And regarding just the regular 120hr verification, a lot of my points above still stand, although to a lesser degree.