How to actually get an IA
01-20-2026 | 05:44 PM
#221
Racketeer
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,409
Likes: 882
From: N60.4858 W149.9327
In the new agreement, there would no longer be violations of assignment notifications. That isn't a bad thing. Whatever novel violations pop-up, should have penalties.
Hopefully, in general, violations decrease, and a huge quid is gained, while nothing *contractually* meaningful changes (robot vs human).
Hopefully, in general, violations decrease, and a huge quid is gained, while nothing *contractually* meaningful changes (robot vs human).
Last edited by notEnuf; 01-20-2026 at 05:55 PM.
01-20-2026 | 05:45 PM
#222
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 360
When tennisguru doesn't get paid for his fatigue call, that's a violation. Harm has occured.
When the company doesn't pay the right pilot for 23M7, that's a violation. Harm has occured.
When the company decides to implement a de facto reliability program, that's a violation. Pilots are intimidated. Harm has occured.
01-20-2026 | 05:47 PM
#223
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 360
And in that post you quoted, I affirmed that whatever new shenanigans sprout from "we didn't think they'd do that" should absolutely have guardrails and penalties.
01-20-2026 | 05:53 PM
#224
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2021
Posts: 1,331
Likes: 386
Because no harm is done. A human calls you vs a robot is completely meaningless.
When tennisguru doesn't get paid for his fatigue call, that's a violation. Harm has occured.
When the company doesn't pay the right pilot for 23M7, that's a violation. Harm has occured.
When the company decides to implement a de facto reliability program, that's a violation. Pilots are intimidated. Harm has occured.
When tennisguru doesn't get paid for his fatigue call, that's a violation. Harm has occured.
When the company doesn't pay the right pilot for 23M7, that's a violation. Harm has occured.
When the company decides to implement a de facto reliability program, that's a violation. Pilots are intimidated. Harm has occured.
A CNO call when a live call is required by the contract, and being held accountable for it (with discipline), would be a violation. Is it also not harm?
01-20-2026 | 06:02 PM
#225
Racketeer
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,409
Likes: 882
From: N60.4858 W149.9327
Sure. I'm just being logical. I can't see how there would be an INCREASE in notification violations if robots were approved for use instead of humans.
And in that post you quoted, I affirmed that whatever new shenanigans sprout from "we didn't think they'd do that" should absolutely have guardrails and penalties.
And in that post you quoted, I affirmed that whatever new shenanigans sprout from "we didn't think they'd do that" should absolutely have guardrails and penalties.
01-21-2026 | 12:24 AM
#226
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 1,435
Likes: 179
As always, BES dependent.
Last edited by 20Fathoms; 01-21-2026 at 01:02 AM.
01-21-2026 | 03:07 AM
#227
Moderator
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,537
Likes: 544
Some would, but most would be just fine with it. I might actually fly bid packet trips again if they got better.
I too had a month like that, but premium seemed to move from category to category. I remember when it a NYC73NB and nearly everyone was amazed to see someone getting so many GS. GS elsewhere seemed to be hit or miss.
01-21-2026 | 05:13 AM
#228
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 8,384
Likes: 1,426
Sure. I'm just being logical. I can't see how there would be an INCREASE in notification violations if robots were approved for use instead of humans.
And in that post you quoted, I affirmed that whatever new shenanigans sprout from "we didn't think they'd do that" should absolutely have guardrails and penalties.
And in that post you quoted, I affirmed that whatever new shenanigans sprout from "we didn't think they'd do that" should absolutely have guardrails and penalties.
So it’s not only affirmative actions that can cause ‘harm’, it can also be the lack of proper notification that can benefit.
It would absolutely be a concession to allow CNO for everything. Maybe it’s worth a trade for a big enough quid, but it’s absolutely a concession.
01-21-2026 | 05:29 AM
#229
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 360
What I think you may be missing (or not acknowledging?) is that when the company fails to properly notify a pilot, that still is a good thing for us. I’ve had multiple episodes of this over the years, whether they be improper/lack of legal rest notification (getting me 30 more hours off), or failure to properly notify of a trip (getting the trip removed), or even better, failure to notify of a change and having it noop (removed with pay).
So it’s not only affirmative actions that can cause ‘harm’, it can also be the lack of proper notification that can benefit.
It would absolutely be a concession to allow CNO for everything. Maybe it’s worth a trade for a big enough quid, but it’s absolutely a concession.
So it’s not only affirmative actions that can cause ‘harm’, it can also be the lack of proper notification that can benefit.
It would absolutely be a concession to allow CNO for everything. Maybe it’s worth a trade for a big enough quid, but it’s absolutely a concession.
It’s only a concession that you lose the *remedy* for their mistakes.
Their mistakes increase our QOL, not any actual contract provision.
That’s why it’s not a contractual concession.
01-21-2026 | 06:46 AM
#230
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2021
Posts: 1,331
Likes: 386
I absolutely understand how this situation improves QOL and why people claim it’s a concession. That’s specifically why I used this example.
It’s only a concession that you lose the *remedy* for their mistakes.
Their mistakes increase our QOL, not any actual contract provision.
That’s why it’s not a contractual concession.
It’s only a concession that you lose the *remedy* for their mistakes.
Their mistakes increase our QOL, not any actual contract provision.
That’s why it’s not a contractual concession.
Right now:
1) If I miss a call/fail to acknowledge a legally assigned trip from a live scheduler and no-show the trip, I could be disciplined.
2) If I miss a call/fail to acknowledge an improperly assigned trip from a CNO call and no-show the trip, I could NOT be disciplined.
How would making 2) above legal and adding discipline to it not be concessionary?
