I think I already know the answer to this but I'll ask anyway.

Any way to get off the autobot notification system for inverse assignments? Keep getting these 0300-0400 phone calls. I can turn my cell ringer off but they always call the home phone immediately after which I cannot easily silence. The IAs are impossible to commute to so even if I had the desire I wouldn't have the ability to make it. Plus the ridiculously early phone calls would have interfered with any crew rest I might have had.

The only option I really see is removing my home phone number. I'm not even sure if there is a major negative other than having a good backup for a GS if my cell is inop or I accidentally leave the ringer off.

I think you also get paid above guarantee on the first day of the GS regardless of if it was a reserve day elsewhere. After you start the trip look at your time card in icrew.

More LCA information PS Its not good
 

There is no way to "turn off" inverse assignment calls. The best way I have using a Google voice number as a backup to my cell, that way if the cell number is down or something at least I'll see it via Google Voice.

If they did this to captains, this place would be lit on fire.

Captain Jerry Fielding

From what I read of the above, FO lines are built as normal until 25% of the OE flying has been awarded. At that point, the remaining OE trips are pulled. So you're partially right - the company gets to choose which trips are tagged for OE, but they don't get to choose specifically which trips are part of the 25% that get awarded.

It still sucks though, and is the primary reason I'm voting no.

Then why hasn't the union put out pro/cons like previous contracts?

They aren't being terminated because it is hard to prove and you know that Carl. I'm not defending this thing, but good grief, this is exactly like not being able to prove the actual existence of new planets or black holes, but rather by observing their effect on other bodies. dALPA would HAVE to defend those people if the company tried to terminate them based on this kind of circumstantial evidence and would more than likely win which is probably why the company doesn't prosecute. I don't know enough about this thing at this point to render a decision one way or the other, but your contention is silly.

Since the MEC did not endorse this TA is that why they can't recommend a no vote?

I agree that the company has a difficult time 'getting rid' of ALLEGED sick leave offenders. This is a problem that the company created, and is now looking to 'solve' that problem with an extremely burdensome, and in my view, potentially threatening apparatus. There are many, many ways to administer sick leave that would reduce abuse, without such a scheme. A bank system for instance. So the obvious question is, why this scheme? Because if we buy off on it, the company will have enormous power over each and every one of us, SHOULD THE NEED ARISE.

On a tangent here, but all I hear about bank systems is that 'people will fly sick'. Here are my thoughts on that:

1. I don't hear my buddies at AMR, UAL, FEdEx and SWA complaining about that issue.

2. We are professionals, we want to be treated as such, and part of that is lawfully deciding we are not fit to fly. I know I don't want to fly when I'm sick!

3. If someone 'abuses' the bank system by showing up sick, then it falls on us, fellow crew members, to enforce a no-tolerance sick policy of our own. As in "You appear to be sick. Please call in sick now, or I will be forced to handle this through the CPO and/or Pro. Stands. You have put me in this position, now you must do something about it or I will". This isn't captain only, it goes for both seats.

4. I believe that if we pass this TA, we will actually have many more people flying sick than any other scheme, as the penalty for not doing so involves an intrusive and potentially damaging investigation by a company AME with your medical on the line.