I know what you mean. Then I saw this in DALPA headquarters this week:


https://thisismylawn.files.wordpress...ion-stand1.jpg


Well there you go.

Carl

I agree with this. Am I for recovery obligations? Hell no. But I could care less about protecting a good deal for a small number of pilots that should move on anyways. I know, I know. Choices, and that opens up capt seats to jr guys, you can do this too when you are a senior FO, etc. maybe this will creat faster upward movement for the "other" 90% of F/Os. Whether you like it or not, there are quite a few jr FOs that I know of that agree with this.

Maybe we can get free hot dogs and beer with this next contract!

Great Philosophy. I don't like it and think it is short sighted. I hope your great 3 day trip with a LCA does not turn into a POS red eye. Or a sweet commutable 4 day does not turn into a six day trip because you get "recovered" into a non-commutable trip.

The same philosophy was used by many DAL Pilots around 2000 when we gave away Scope. It went something like this - "We are hiring like crazy, who cares if we allow more RJs - it will only affect a few junior Pilots anyway." We are still paying for that short sighted approach today to some extent.


So guys who live in base should not support any changes that would help commuters. International WB guys should not support any duty rigs that protect the NB guys.

We have this in the contract for a reason. Every thing we have is because it was defended, fought for, and traded for. So why should we give up anything? :confused:

Scoop

Actually pulling trips for IOE would affect the whole FO list top-to-bottom as those trips would be gone before the PBS ran thus pushing down everyone's choice. That would truly lock in the personnel savings that the company would be looking for.

Some sort of limited recovery would be the least damaging change, but any change would be a "concession".

Every "concession" has a price. What if company said for recovery on IOE, all pilots now would get one PAID APD per year good for up to 4 days? Wonder if that would pass?

Either we're not talking about the same thing, or one us is really misunderstanding what's being discussed. The "method of assigning trips to LCA's" being rumored to be proposed by the company removes the trips from the FO side. That's bad for staffing, and bad for every FO, since that's one less trip available. it's like placing a non-existant FO senior to you on the list. So while the OE guy is flying the trip of the quality YOU could hold, you're out flying a lower quality trip. And you take the next quality trip from the guy below, who takes it from the guy below that, etc.

I don't see any way a single FO wins in this scenario.

Doesn't solve the issue of paying a pilot not to fly. Just kicks the can down the road, from the company's perspective.

What are you moving up into, if the trips disappear with the pilot that could hold them?

However we used to get exactly that! I kind of like the concept!

I do too, but this issue essentially affects anyone who has FO's senior to them, meaning mostly FO's and Captains up to about mid-seniority NB (consider how many 777/747 FO's are senior to the average NB Captain).

We can probably do better than shifting the cost of a paid APD, onto a portion of the list. When we make trades, we probably ought to focus on the common benefit, and on sharing the burden/costs as well.

How long ago did we have a paid APD, anyway? I can't remember ever seeing it.