|
|
Originally Posted by sinca3
(Post 1433035)
Really! Everyone on here says we are money ***** and that the company depends on us to pick up extra flying. We have a handful of SLI's and thy only fly the line one month a year (maybe two). Either way, if hiring did occur and new hires were getting training all the FO's that were to fly with those LCA are now able to pick up more flying.....ie white slip on top of original trip for GS pay or GS on top of original trip for triple pay!!
I find your rumor or reasoning flawed. |
Originally Posted by finis72
(Post 1433121)
Denny, That's the way I see it also, don't think it requires less pilots but it does probably mean less trips in open time after the initial bids.
Denny |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1433111)
I won't disagree with what you say but you need to explain this in a different way to me.
What I read was that your vacation credit of 3:15 per day still counts towards the total time PBS will award you. If I have a week of vacation it's worth 22:45. Say the ALV for the month is 72:30. That makes the upper limit that PBS can award you 80 hrs. In a month with vacation and this 80 hr upper limit, PBS cannot award you more than 57:15 (plus 22:45=80hrs). This hasn't changed with vacation any. At least this was how I read it. All "vacation any" allows is for you to get some of that 57:15 over the time of your scheduled vacation by swapping it for different days in the month. It doesn't allow you to pick up more time than you could before "vacation any." I don't see where it allows you to fly any more or less hours than before. Am I wrong? If so, how? How does this cost jobs compared to what we had before? I would love to have touching trips for vacation..... Denny Your example is accurate but consider the effect when you are able to break a week's vacation into individual days and sprinkle them around between your trips. I don't guess I'm smart enough to describe a specific PBS example but it just seems intuitively obvious that this is going to make it easier to build more efficient lines around vacations. The way it is now, the blocked week of vacation is put on your schedule first and the trips have to fit around it. With "vacation any" you build the schedule first and then PBS just puts individual vacation days on your days off. Its like you don't even have a "vacation". You need the days off for FAR rest anyway. Now you'll be able to call it vacation and a 24 in 7 break all in one. It becomes much easier to build a line and especially to build a line to the upper end of the construction window. Seems like white slipping to 120 hours will also become easier if you don't have solid weeks blocked off. |
Denny is correct.
Now, I will admit, it probably helps WB guys more than domestic NB guys and I used it when I flew the 12 day Asia trips at NWA. The trip construction window stays the same. All it means is you fly one trip (that you want) and sprinkle your vacation days around it VS flying two trips in a normal non-vacation month. Right now, on a vacation month I fly a couple of trips I don't want that fit around vacation and probably carry out into the next month......or I sit reserve. Anyway, I disagree it costs jobs. If someone smart can put pencil to paper and show me how it would I'll read it but I just don't see it. I honestly think it doesn't effect jobs one way or the other. JMHO, Ferd |
more hand flying coming to the 88 as a training emphasis. kind of the opposite of vnav only and watch her fly herself. kind if like it.
|
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1433118)
Excellent point.
The way it is now, guys are using white slips and swaps to basically fly full schedules even in months with vacations. This "vacation any" thing is only going to make it easier to do that. I guess max hours is what the pilot group wants. DALPA is sure acting like it anyway. |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1433130)
Denny-
Your example is accurate but consider the effect when you are able to break a week's vacation into individual days and sprinkle them around between your trips. I don't guess I'm smart enough to describe a specific PBS example but it just seems intuitively obvious that this is going to make it easier to build more efficient lines around vacations. The way it is now, the blocked week of vacation is put on your schedule first and the trips have to fit around it. With "vacation any" you build the schedule first and then PBS just puts individual vacation days on your days off. Its like you don't even have a "vacation". You need the days off for FAR rest anyway. Now you'll be able to call it vacation and a 24 in 7 break all in one. It becomes much easier to build a line and especially to build a line to the upper end of the construction window. Seems like white slipping to 120 hours will also become easier if you don't have solid weeks blocked off. In fact, I think your ability to white slip would be less since you may not have enough non vacation days off in a row........but as I said above, I'm thinking WB stuff. Ferd |
Originally Posted by Ferd149
(Post 1433131)
Denny is correct.
Now, I will admit, it probably helps WB guys more than domestic NB guys and I used it when I flew the 12 day Asia trips at NWA. The trip construction window stays the same. All it means is you fly one trip (that you want) and sprinkle your vacation days around it VS flying two trips in a normal non-vacation month. Right now, on a vacation month I fly a couple of trips I don't want that fit around vacation and probably carry out into the next month......or I sit reserve. Anyway, I disagree it costs jobs. If someone smart can put pencil to paper and show me how it would I'll read it but I just don't see it. I honestly think it doesn't effect jobs one way or the other. JMHO, Ferd Eggsactly! That's how I see it too. Check your pm's. Denny |
[QUOTE=Herkflyr;1433109]
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 1433103)
I think you (or ALPA) would have had a very hard time defending that. Bottom line is that green slips are "premium pay" trips. Whether they paid double, or time and a half, hardly matters. The bottom line is that after our concessionary agreements, we still had GS that paid at overtime rates and allowed the company to draw on a pool of pilots that otherwise would not have been able to fly. Whether that is good or not is another discussion. It WAS the "status quo." Again, I hated the idea of anyone flying a GS back then--I sure didn't. But after getting sued in 2001 over this issue DALPA had (and to this day, still has, just read the disclaimer every time you open up the DALPA forums) a circuit court ruling hamstringing us. Herkflyr, I agree that DALPA would have had a hard time defending that but I think we could have made a strong case. You say 150% or 200% does not matter - it is all premium pay. I disagree. What makes it premium is the added value. 150% is only has half the added value of 200%. And I also think what actually happened bears this out. When Green-slips went from 200% to 150%, along with with some other restrictions, they were so less desirable that many guys stopped flying them. In fact so few were interested in them that the company agreed to return them back to 200% because they were much less effective as a scheduling tool for the company. The bottom line is we will never know what would have happened. It would have played out in court and then anything can happen. It is disappointing to me that we did not even try, but I guess guys were gun-shy after being sued. I do applaud your not putting in for green-slips with guys on furlough. It boggles my mind that any union member would put in for extra work while fellow union members are on the street. This does not seem to make for a very effective union. Scoop |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1432856)
Highly doubtful considering Flanigan and Kraby are heading up the hiring process that is in the process of firing up. Notice how much more affirmative SD has been about interviews this fall vice his phrasing on the C2012 sales job.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:30 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands