This is the stuff that drove me away from DPA. For years we have heard how horrible our negotiators are and that they should be replaced. Now one leaves and he was the best thing that ever happened to the pilot group and man are we screwed. Which is it?

Had DPA run a more positive campaign not focusing on comparing our contract to Chinese forced abortions, irrelevant hacking scandals turning into a "federal case" and other bogey man type antics there would have been a vote by now. Unfortunate TC is blinded by his anger and ambition and can't give up control. I keep hearing that there are former "good guys" from the MEC and various positions who have seen the light and are just waiting for DPA to come to the rescue.

 

It also says:

"New...category means, for the purposes of Section 22, a category that has not been in existence for 60 days since the date of the first opportunity for the first conversion"

So you might get another bite at the apple if there is another immediate AE the following month. I'm not sure though. New categories coupled with almost constant mothly AE's is somewhat uncharted territory so I hesitate to say for sure. Normally in most cases you only got 1 chance to bid it but in this case you may get 2 depending on the frequency of the AE's in conjunction with the new category.

That said, it really doesn't matter because you're either going to get it or you're not if you have a bid in for it, and you should NEVER have an AE/VD bid in for something you don't want or even want less than what you currently have. In your case that also means don't have a bid in unless you're willing to be the plug…possibly for a while. If that bothers you, throw in a percentage qualifier. However if you do that, you need to be OK with not getting it when you could have been the plug.

Just to muddy the mud even more, the flying in new categories tends to suck for a while. However the first attempt might be your only way in for a long time, precicely because more senior pilots who want it, and intend to bid it in the future, may bypass on the first attempt. That could get you a plug position, but then on future AE's here come the senior bidders "pushing you down" and keeping you the plug, possibly for years.

Do not bid it unless you want it. If you want it, don't forget to bid it.

 

Thanks for the opinion. My take is that as long as I wouldn't be involuntarily displaced, I don't think it would be horrible to be the plug as long as I lived in domicile. While I like money as much as the next guy, I could be happy just pulling in reserve guarantee for a couple years if it meant I'd have lots of free time to enjoy my family and the outdoors. As a new guy who really doesn't have any concept of life as the plug, would that be a fairly accurate assessment?

My wife followed me for 16 years in the AF so I promised her she could pick any domicile where I could hold an airframe. She has given me the options of Seattle and Atlanta. I currently live in San Antonio and hate how I'm basically a prisoner in my own home for 5-6 months of the year due to the heat/humidity and I don't see that being any different in Atlanta. Due to kids in school we need to move this summer or not at all, and even on positive space I don't like commuting which means we are definitely moving this summer. If I can't get SEA on the January AE then it is unlikely I'd be able to get there any time soon anyway so I feel like this is my one shot to break free of the south .

As for the new category, tell me about it . I'm ecstatic to have been hired by DAL, but my 717 NYC reserve schedule in January will not be one of my selling points to the bros who are asking about staying in/getting out. I think it would sting a lot less if my goofy reserve schedule was spent sitting at home with the family rather than commuting back and forth to the crash pad.

 

This trend to more and more 5 days as highlighted in the scheduling alert sucks. No matter how you slice it, we are paying for that 5:15 guarantee.

 

Looks like Carl is up to his old tricks of spreading DPA lies.

The C44 resolution was not "received". It was amended and passed unanimously. According to a summary of resolutions from my reps in their latest update, "14-148: Directs the MEC Chairman to investigate possible enhancements to the membership balloting and confirmation process. [Unanimous]"

 

Law of unintended consequences

 

It also mentions the 2 other major reasons that we are seeing more of the longer trips:

1. We are no longer fat staffed
2. Mainline block hours are way up YOY but staffing increases haven't kept up

If they want to fly the projected schedule the only option is to squeeze more out of the pilots that are currently here.

I still hate 5 day trips, and prefer to not do 4 days either, but to blame the entire thing on 5:15 ADG doesn't tell the whole story. I'd still like to see it go to 5:45 or 6:00 ADG in C2015. If that results in more 4/5 day trips domestically then so be it - at least they'd be worth more.

 

I am not sure what you define as a goofy reserve schedule. If you are on the 717 in NYC for JAN you can move virtually any day you want. You can also personal drop any days you don't want to be on call. If being in a heavily overmanned category on reserve is this much trouble for you then your not going to be happy in this job.

 

I was at the meeting where this was discussed. It was a good idea, but not sure I'd describe it as a "movement." One pilot brought it in as a resolution and the group agreed with the idea.

Apparently it is illegal per federal law to provide any sort of vote tabulation for elections (supposedly for intimidation protection??), but not so for contracts, LOAs, etc. This resolution was to explore ways to allow pilots to verify after the fact that their vote was properly recorded against a master list.

The idea floated was to assign each pilot a random tracking ID that would be attached to his vote. After the votes are tallied, a spreadsheet could be published with 2 columns - one with the tracking IDs and the other with the vote. That way a pilot could go look at the sheet, find his # and verify it was recorded properly.

I'm fine with the idea, but there were a few cons presented. Among those:

- the potential for a pilot to intimidate/threaten another based on his vote. ie "Tell me your ID # so I can verify you're not a surrender monkey..."
- We don't want the body that oversees the voting (NMB? can't remember) to interpret this move as our lack of confidence in the electronic voting system that we currently have. The concern stated was that we could be forced back into a snail mail voting system, which would decrease pilot participation, etc...
- A few more that I can't remember

Mostly though, I don't see the harm and if it makes a guy feel warm and fuzzy about the process then why not? Just my opinion.

 

Investigate=bury