How to actually get an IA
01-19-2026 | 09:54 AM
#151
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2023
Posts: 3,562
Likes: 1,089
Lots of people on here were of the belief that QS would never be implemented until during/after section 6 negotiations. I've said from the moment the MOU came out that QS will be here as quickly as the company can possibly get it done. For one they absolutely hate not having sick verification (the letters this week help prove that), and also from a practical perspective they need a more automated way to cover the trips they can't/won't run through TC. Having 300 pilots try to call in to speak to a live scheduler when they're already completely overloaded isn't working well for the company either.
So yes, QS aren't here yet but it's looking more and more likely that the naysayers were wrong.
So yes, QS aren't here yet but it's looking more and more likely that the naysayers were wrong.
01-19-2026 | 10:06 AM
#152
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 999
Likes: 102
Lots of people on here were of the belief that QS would never be implemented until during/after section 6 negotiations. I've said from the moment the MOU came out that QS will be here as quickly as the company can possibly get it done. For one they absolutely hate not having sick verification (the letters this week help prove that), and also from a practical perspective they need a more automated way to cover the trips they can't/won't run through TC. Having 300 pilots try to call in to speak to a live scheduler when they're already completely overloaded isn't working well for the company either.
So yes, QS aren't here yet but it's looking more and more likely that the naysayers were wrong.
So yes, QS aren't here yet but it's looking more and more likely that the naysayers were wrong.
A5S
01-19-2026 | 10:47 AM
#154
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2023
Posts: 945
Likes: 335
YES, if the company is knowingly giving GSs when other pilots should be getting them you should not accept or seek a GS, but that is not happening.
This speaks to self discipline and integrity. The company efficiently and correctly proffers and awards GSs in accordance with the PWA. IAs are the new GS. We have to hold them accountable for the process. We know the deal makers are doing this to get multiple IAs. If a person accepts a second IA it is their decision to circumvent the process. This doesn't happen with GSs and there is a reason why. If it were to happen with GS or SLV or WS there would be the same, and more widespread outrage. The company is not in compliance with 23M7 or IAs and we need to demand compliance both of the company and ourselves.
This speaks to self discipline and integrity. The company efficiently and correctly proffers and awards GSs in accordance with the PWA. IAs are the new GS. We have to hold them accountable for the process. We know the deal makers are doing this to get multiple IAs. If a person accepts a second IA it is their decision to circumvent the process. This doesn't happen with GSs and there is a reason why. If it were to happen with GS or SLV or WS there would be the same, and more widespread outrage. The company is not in compliance with 23M7 or IAs and we need to demand compliance both of the company and ourselves.
01-19-2026 | 11:11 AM
#155
Racketeer
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,409
Likes: 882
From: N60.4858 W149.9327
I'll clarify since you are correct in pointing out what seems like an apparent difference. 23M7 is part of our PWA and provides guidelines for the company to "deviate from the sequences under Section 23 N. or O." They sequence is all that is allowed to be changed. So they move to a step of coverage that requires inverse assignment and continue to run coverage from the new step. That doesn't allow them to make up steps or not comply with the requirements of the step. IA or A#x is how this is accounted for in coverage and pay. When I say it's not a real IA what is meant is that it didn't follow the sequence and end up at that step in the normal order of coverage. The fact that we don't have a way to differentiate the separate paths to arrive at the IA steps is the source of confusion. In either situation you are only forced/entitled to 1 IA until you are the only available pilot exactly like the GS steps of coverage. They are IAs for pay and coverage and all other PWA applicable situations, however the step was reached as a result of 23M7.
01-19-2026 | 11:13 AM
#156
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 4,187
Likes: 670
01-19-2026 | 11:20 AM
#157
Racketeer
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,409
Likes: 882
From: N60.4858 W149.9327
Lots of people on here were of the belief that QS would never be implemented until during/after section 6 negotiations. I've said from the moment the MOU came out that QS will be here as quickly as the company can possibly get it done. For one they absolutely hate not having sick verification (the letters this week help prove that), and also from a practical perspective they need a more automated way to cover the trips they can't/won't run through TC. Having 300 pilots try to call in to speak to a live scheduler when they're already completely overloaded isn't working well for the company either.
So yes, QS aren't here yet but it's looking more and more likely that the naysayers were wrong.
So yes, QS aren't here yet but it's looking more and more likely that the naysayers were wrong.
01-19-2026 | 11:26 AM
#159
Racketeer
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,409
Likes: 882
From: N60.4858 W149.9327
Me personally... I would trust the vetted GS process and take any that are proffered to me. In the case of IAs I wouldn't be comfortable taking more than one.
01-19-2026 | 11:55 AM
#160
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2024
Posts: 306
Likes: 152
Do you also see a trip pop up during your SC window that you know they can’t get through the coverage quick enough to get to you, but you go ahead and call CS and tell them, “Give that to me, it’s my turn!”
