Originally Posted by Puddytatt (Post 3966149)

Well good thing we only agreed to what was already due to us from a prior settlement... No new punishment for ignoring the prior settlement.

Originally Posted by Puddytatt (Post 3966149)

Well good thing we only agreed to what was already due to us from a prior settlement... No new punishment for ignoring the prior settlement.

Originally Posted by Puddytatt (Post 3966148)

What makes you think they are suddenly going to start abiding by contract language/grievance settlements? 23m7 language already required them to pay someone. Clearly they weren't doing that all the time. The sick call grievance language already required them to do exactly what this new grievance settlement is requiring them to do. They expressly weren't following it already. But suddenly they will? Do we work for the same company?

Originally Posted by texas1970 (Post 3966150)

We got a much improved IA process and substantial PWA improvements with much stronger language than was in the previous settlements. The return of sick verification will take a much longer time than the previous settlement would have implied, for example.

A lot of people don’t understand how these arbitrations work. You can have a perfect case presented by excellent attorneys backed by clear language and still lose. You can have an awful case not backed up by any language at all and still win. Arbitrators always try to give wins to both sides so that they can keep their employment - either side can strike them off the list. That results in some weird decisions. Welcome to the Railway Labor Act.

Getting all of this codified without any risk of arbitration is a big win.

Originally Posted by tennisguru (Post 3966170)

So I get that there is no sick lookback for verification purposes going back to July. Does this also mean that none of that sick time counts towards the max of 50 hours used to be able to be free of all GFB calls in the next sick year?

Originally Posted by OOfff (Post 3966119)

what about this mou makes that more likely or useful as an impasse tool than the pre-qs system?

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3966176)

The MOU drives the fix (QS) timeline into section 6 we are less able to as a group take actions due to status quo. We have locked in the IA debacle as status quo. The incomplete fix means we will fight over this in section 6 so add it to the list of things likely to slow negotiations.

Originally Posted by OOfff (Post 3966177)

we have dramatically changed the ia debacle for the better. what are you talking about that we’ve locked it in as status quo?

Originally Posted by FangsF15 (Post 3966137)

In no particular oder, adding to CB's response below... The company was disputing that they were in compliance with MiCrew's sick automation requirement. Now, they not only agree it doesn't work properly (despite RG's absurd statements to the contrary), but there is a two month 'cure' where there have to be less than 10 DART reports in two consecutive months. In the meantime, there is no verification for sick OR accumulation of verification hours, backdated to July. At a bare minimum, there will be 6 full months where no sick will count toward any verification window, and I strongly suspect it will go beyond that. Regardless, we now have a permanent QHCP of any provider for GFB or future verifications, including Telehealth (which was absolutely ridiculous to begin with). There are a few minor provisions on top of that regarding pay if sick is not processed properly.

But more importantly, the company has to affirmatively identify the harmed pilot under 23.M.7 before they can skip ahead. Given how many violations were they failed to "log" these, that's a big deal, because it has to be automated AND identified first.

I see the virtual effective elimination of IA's sufficient in and of itself. They weren't even honoring the 'inverse'/involuntary language there, ignoring seniority almost entirely. And, if they DO skip to an actual IA, it's 4x pay. Honestly, the QS will get gobbled up pretty quick. Several of us had suggested creating a new step of coverage and eliminating the 2-step process for that step. With these other guardrails, I submit this will be a good change. I was initially thinking it would scale back on the WS/OOB farming, but now I'm not so sure. I'd like to see a tweak that would eliminate that, like a leveling mechanism for 23.M.7 payments.

They can't just stop an ARCOS callout anymore - which they were doing all. the. time. They can't simultaneously run multiple steps of coverage - which they were doing all. the. time.

And again. This is a settlement of a settlement. The system board does not look kindly at a party failing to comply with one settlement, let alone a settlement of a settlement. This gives this MOU extra weight. I strongly suspect we had some pretty damning evidence in the form of CS on tape violating the contract to get this agreement.

Are there tweaks that I might have liked to see? Sure. Tell your reps, and we can address it in Section 6. I guess there actually were a lot more folks who didn't want to wait for section 6. For the masses, stopping the rampant IA's is worth the MOU.



Look, I get that you don't like it. But for the vast majority of the pilot group, this is a win. You'd have to be pretty cynical to want the problem more than a solid solution.

Originally Posted by FangsF15 (Post 3966146)

I don’t understand why people think they will “just skip GS” and pay triple. That adds up big time. Obviously, it’s not impossible and will happen on occasion, but to say it will somehow be the norm?

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3966182)

I just wanted to highlight what may not be obvious to everyone... RG was knowingly lying to us to claim they were in compliance to avoid the AGREED UPON remedy. Anyone think he would do this again?

…

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3966184)

...because that's exactly what they are doing right now and is the entire reason this MOU came about.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3966184)

...because that's exactly what they are doing right now and is the entire reason this MOU came about.

Originally Posted by OOfff (Post 3966177)

we have dramatically changed the ia debacle for the better. what are you talking about that we’ve locked it in as status quo?

Originally Posted by FangsF15 (Post 3966185)

By that logic. Why have a PWA at all? I mean, if they are just constitutionally bent to ignore any agreement, why bother?



<sigh> You think they would rather pay triple than pay double?

Originally Posted by Gone Flying (Post 3966186)

there are still plenty of GS that go out. I think everyone expects any trip they would now cover with an IA due to time constraints will be covered with a QS. What I don’t see happening and don’t see anyone explaining why it would is trips that are now going out as GS going out as QS under this new agreement.

and if it does I honestly don’t see the downside. Still pays the same as a GS but with no trigger, all while seniority is honored. And someone else gets single pay on top. More pay for the pilot group, no GS trigger for the pilot who flies it, seniority is honored.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3966191)

1) they are planning this for the summer and the "little hot" 20+ IROP days per month. If you thought IAs were being overused now just wait until they get to the meat of the schedule and weather season.

2) by giving them the easy button we have shifted the burden of responding to everything to the individual pilot. One of the "gets " of the whole 23M7 over use negotiation and resultant 8 hour deal was proffers and auto accept . As usual we gave those right back with a highly inadequate quid.

Originally Posted by CBreezy (Post 3966193)

Nothing. Has. Changed. It's not any easier for them now than it was other than shorter hold times.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3966191)

1) they are planning this for the summer and the "little hot" 20+ IROP days per month. If you thought IAs were being overused now just wait until they get to the meat of the schedule and weather season.

2) by giving them the easy button we have shifted the burden of responding to everything to the individual pilot. One of the "gets" of the whole 23M7 over use negotiation and resultant 8 hour deal was proffers and auto accept. As usual we gave those right back with a highly inadequate quid.

Originally Posted by CBreezy (Post 3966193)

Nothing. Has. Changed. It's not any easier for them now than it was other than shorter hold times.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3966196)

Everything. Has. Changed. The company has a much easier coverage tool at no additional cost. We got nothing for that except removal of auto accept and proffers when the new tool is used.

Originally Posted by Gone Flying (Post 3966197)

this. They had an easy button before that was a total free for all, now it’s seniority based. With the added benefit of now participation is voluntary vs IA where everyone got a call regardless of if they wanted one.

if they want to run the summer paying 300% vs 200%, that’s their choice

Originally Posted by Gone Flying (Post 3966197)

if they want to run the summer paying 300% vs 200%, that’s their choice

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3966196)

Everything. Has. Changed. The company has a much easier coverage tool at no additional cost. We got nothing for that except removal of auto accept and proffers when the new tool is used.

Originally Posted by StoneQOLdCrazy (Post 3966201)

I'm trying to figure out why mgmt wanted this at all, rather than just doing their own thing for another couple of years, waiting for arbitration.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3966196)

The company has a much easier coverage tool at no additional cost.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3966196)

Everything. Has. Changed. The company has a much easier coverage tool at no additional cost. We got nothing for that except removal of auto accept and proffers when the new tool is used.

Originally Posted by FangsF15 (Post 3966156)

You clearly missed the part where they cannot assign under 23M7 unless the harmed pilot is identified. Automation is required. Their prior failures are part of the leverage to have gotten this in writing.

Originally Posted by Viper25 (Post 3966154)

The frozen sick use look back and suspension of sick verification are very nice, and quite undermentioned.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3966182)

I have my doubts about the willingness and ability of the IT fixes for icrew, that should be all I need to say about that.

Originally Posted by Puddytatt (Post 3966216)

That's my whole point. They have HAD to pay someone for years, yet they never did consistently until about a year ago. But suddenly they are going to follow the language that they agreed to this time to a T? I'll believe it when I see it. They will just create a placeholder Capt. G. Rumm #000001 and assign the pay to it and move on.


And before you say that THIS TIME, an arbitrator will be super super cereally peeved. Pilots will just complain to their reps, just like with batch sizes and just like with IAs, and DALPA will give away something elss to settle yet another grievance, all with only input from the minority complainers and no input from the overall pilot group via MEMRAT or a poll. But then that time will for sure be different. They pinky promise.

Originally Posted by Gunfighter (Post 3966212)

I hope the company takes advantage of this easier coverage tool and skips the GS step more often. When CS skips GS by hitting the QS easy button more than they already do with IA it expands the 23M7 financial burden going into negotiations. We have given the entry level CSers an easy button that generates millions of additional pilot value out of the PWA. Every additional QS usage over IA because of the convenience of automation gives us more leverage. If this indeed becomes more widespread than IA it's a huge win for pilots.

Originally Posted by Puddytatt (Post 3966216)

That's my whole point. They have HAD to pay someone for years, yet they never did consistently until about a year ago. But suddenly they are going to follow the language that they agreed to this time to a T? I'll believe it when I see it. They will just create a placeholder Capt. G. Rumm #000001 and assign the pay to it and move on.


And before you say that THIS TIME, an arbitrator will be super super cereally peeved. Pilots will just complain to their reps, just like with batch sizes and just like with IAs, and DALPA will give away something elss to settle yet another grievance, all with only input from the minority complainers and no input from the overall pilot group via MEMRAT or a poll. But then that time will for sure be different. They pinky promise.

Originally Posted by Puddytatt (Post 3966217)

Those were part of the grievance from earlier this year. We specifically got 0 extra that I see than we were already due to get on the sick leave side of this MOU. It's exactly what was promised from the settlement grievance. And several months late with 0 penalty for that. People should have been able to use QHCP for the last several months, and not been getting 120 hour note verifications. They got away with several months of that when they agreed not to.

Originally Posted by 20Fathoms (Post 3966224)

As a reserve I couldn’t disagree more. For reserves a QS is inferior to a GS in every single way. No trigger? We never had one. But auto accept? No thanks have fun being 699th in line for the 3 am call.:D

[This is solely in response to his hypothetical of lots of GS being replaced by QS which is far from guaranteed]

If IAs are replaced 1 for 1 with QS good riddance but if they encroach into GS that’s a big problem. For anyone like me who hates nuisance calls and likes auto accept GS, let’s hope his hypothetical never happens.

Edit: It’s conveniently too late to put it in the survey but here’s another plug for a tighter timeline on QS. 2 hours ideally but I’d definitely take 4. 8 is way too early to abandon ship and I’m disappointed ALPA didn’t touch on this at all.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3966187)

The debacle will remain until the implementation of the automation. So until then we have a precedent going back to early this summer that IA can be assigned as they are currently, meaning any way they like. A# can be found up and down the seniority list in every category. That won't change until implementation which means 6+ more months of this. We didn't stop anything, yet. But I'm sure this will never be disputed again so don't worry.

Originally Posted by OOfff (Post 3966020)

true only if you have a quick slip in. don’t want a call? don’t submit a quick slip

Originally Posted by neodd (Post 3966243)

Thats like saying, don’t want premium flying, don’t put in a greenslip.

It should be possible that someone can both want premium flying and also not want to be inconvenienced by spam calls for premium trips they can’t get.

When they start skipping GS every time, everyone will be inconvenienced every time.

Originally Posted by neodd (Post 3966243)

Thats like saying, don’t want premium flying, don’t put in a greenslip.

It should be possible that someone can both want premium flying and also not want to be inconvenienced by spam calls for premium trips they can’t get.

When they start skipping GS every time, everyone will be inconvenienced every time.

Originally Posted by CBreezy (Post 3966249)

So you'd rather be inconvenienced by IA calls you'll never be able to answer....

Originally Posted by Viper25 (Post 3966230)

Bold part = wrong.

You need to reread the 24-32 Settlement Agreement. It contained NO MENTION of suspension of sick verification. None. It only had the QHCP and sick lookback provisions.

The MOU’s suspension of sick verification IS new, and it is a gain for the pilots. Do not say there was “0 extra.”