I agree swing the poll results would be interesting but they don't publish poll results do they?

well I wish when they poll they'd just do it through the internet or something-then they could get everyone. Who's to say the sample is valid? Did they poll the same number of senior vs. junior people? Did they even poll people that are on reserve? Something just doesn't seem right about doing a small sample poll on something that affects everyone. And also I was told a few months ago a poll was coming in August and to let my thoughts be heard then. Wow.

Dunno. I would expect we will hear what the MEC decides to do wrt bucket sizes even if the entire poll is not published.

Even if it is published in black and white, there will be those saying it was tampered with, forged, faked, etc. so I'm not sure how much good it would do anyways. The entire point is so the MEC can make the best decision based on what the majority of pilots want.

Timbo, my point earlier was even if we, as a group, want bigger buckets, it won't automatically happen. The company would have to agree to it, as it would increase our cost. Now if we ask for something that saves them money, they would probably accept, just my opinion.

I agree Scoop. Although I used to dig being a senior reserve and not working I feel the current bucket system seems to be a good compromise.

Just "doing it through the Internet or something" would very likely result in skewed results due to self-selection bias among other problems.

I get that you specifically wanted to be asked your thoughts, but its not cost effective to call every single pilot. The MEC did that last year and it took nearly 4 months to complete the call. It is a massive effort.

All parts of the list: junior, senior, reg, rsv, etc were called. Something like 700 or 800 pilots were called to achieve a representative sample. The polling is conducted by a professional third party that had been doing this for decades:

http://www.teamsterssfo.com/items/is...MENTedited.pdf

There is nothing shady going on here. In fact, I like the fact that the MEC was responsible enough to order the poll to figure out exactly what the majority wants, in light of the conflicting resolutions.

The way we had it a couple years ago (no 80 RAW score) was not fair to the senior folks. I think it's ok right now. Maybe decrease the RAW score a little. I definitely don't want us to go to seniority only, and I'm a senior reserve! I think the current system is a good balance.

I agree with this as well.

With some tweaking to the SC situation the current bucket system is a good compromise.

The previous system (pre bucket) basically ignored seniority unless raw scores were equal. And the only time that usually happened was at the beginning of the month when everyone was at zero.


Political rant: distributing reserve flying equally between junior and senior seems to run contrary to our entirely seniority-based world. What is next to be changed?

I've more or less come to terms with the bucket size- however SC really needs to be part of the standard bucket. I've worked every day possible this month due to the SC deal.

FWIW, in regard to getting to bucket 2- It takes around a 4 day and a 2-3 day to hit bucket 2.

Sorry, but the highlighted sentence really grinds my gears. This is a job. If you want to get paid then you're going to have to WORK. This isn't a charity. It's a business. It's also our unions duty to represent and work to improve the QOL of ALL of it's pilots. So it's not ok for someone to expect the bottom of the category to do all the work while he/she sits around all month doing nothing.

When people are in the same bucket, seniority is honored. The system absolutely honors seniority.

I'm sorry for jumping down your throat. :o

I just think items like this should be put to us for a vote. This Bucket LOA was implemented and I asked my rep why. He said they got 300 or so comments asking for more seniority on reserve. Problem is we had 12000 plus pilots at the time. I really don't think 300 is representative of 12000. Just my thoughts.