I agree with gloopy.
Sitting reserve from across the continent seems a bit excessive.
I don't think the stress would ever be worth it. That's just me though. I can't imagine commuting to reserve from any distance.
To each his own I suppose.

 

Not much stress, just always have to be ready to head to the airport. If I'm sitting around doing nothing for months on end I'd rather be happy where I'm living.

 

Yes indeed. When I quoted Richard and Ed's written statements to the financial media that the TA was cost neutral, all the usual DALPA suspects called me a liar and said I was mis-stating the intent of their statements. Then the DALPA officers vigorously defended the TA as not cost neutral at the road shows.

I only care that we learn from our mistakes. What was our biggest mistake? Substituting the "judgment" and "expertise" of the MEC administration for our own judgment and logic.

Carl

 

If you wind up on a SLOA, you do have travel benefits but they are below S-3. Bar is correct that while out on paid sick leave, you can't non-rev without special permission.

 

????

The pilot group finally gets a big win and you think that its unfair because all of the senior FO's will gravitate to bidding with LCA?

How would that be any different than them using their seniority to fly: only week days, all the Rome layovers, bid off on the holidays, etc...?

They aren't guaranteed to be off the trip just because they are flying with a LCA.

I can't think of anything negative about this for the pilot group. People are still limited to the max pick up.

 

I agree with you. I look forward to bidding with senior LCAs when the time is right. Additionally, trips touching vacation drops would be great, so would power moveups, and all of the other inefficiencies that we have given away over the years.

 

We should go back to bidding by telephone too. And make sure the FE does the time cards right.

 

The max pick up will mitigate the costs, but your other points are a bit off. "All" the senior FO's won't be able to take advangate of it, unless you define "senior" to the number that can do it, in which case I guess that would be technically correct, although it would prove my point anyway.

And its not really a big win for the whole pilot group, only those who can buddy bid. That number will be limited by the number of active LCA's in any given month in the first place. Right now, not such a big problem, but when we see massive retirements and (maybe) new hire training, this will be a huge cost on our contract. Come contract time, to keep the windfall for a tiny percentage of pilots will require a subsidy by all.

The previous system mandated added protections for OE recovery for the pilots effected. I absolutely support that. But not the creation of a little micro empire where a tiny few can get all month off with pay, and in many cases pick up extra pay for working a tiny fraction of a month total. That is a rediculous way to spend our negotiating capital. Even so, if we can't sell it back for something of equal or greater net value to the entire group, then let's keep it. I'm not advocating giving it away for nothing. But this will become very expensive in a couple years, and we will have to expend significant negotiating capital to keep it, for the massive benefit of a select few. I predict it won't last for that reason.

No pilot has an inherent right to be off all month just because they can buddy bid or pairing bid with OE trips/CA's. That is absolutely not the same as "using seniority to bid good trips" as you have suggested. If that were true, let's mandate the company create full credit lines with zero flying and let pilots bid those in seniority order. Think that would ever happen? I guess it could, if we were willing to fund it. But why?

I predict this won't last.

 

Big Bang rocks. We've been watching it for years. And Kaley Couco, Camarillo, CAs finest, is fun too.

 

And you're willing to give up what exactly to fund that?

Thinking we can reinstall massive productivity killers in our contract out of sheer force of will is the wrong way to negotiate IMO. We need more pay and QOL and scope, but returning to asinine little scams like that are not the way. And I am one of the biggest critics of our horrible vacation scams, yet I don't want a return to touch drops because that is the worst possible way to go about fixing it, and its not going to happen anyway.