I don't feel "insulted." The whole VB thing had errors on both sides. I won't keep rehashing them. I do believe that thoughtful disagreement is a good thing, whether between the pilots and the company, or between pilots on a message board.

 

See there. We agree.

 

Part of the reason we declined to continue the extension to trying VBs was the company was handling SILs in a manner that benefited few at the expense of many more. Trying to find the bottom of how low pilots would go on compensation (40 hours? 25 hours?) to take the month off. They said they were doing this in categories that were overmanned....AFTER declining RCC requests in the same category. Those RCC requests conveyed the wishes of pilots looking to improve their QOL but the company wouldn't hear it. The union also asked that overmanned categories yield more vacation weeks in those overmanned months (another seniority-honoring QOL enhancer)... to no avail. Since the company sought to solve manning imbalance only by lowest-bidder SIL seekers while telling DALPA to pound sand regarding solutions pilots actually wanted, I fully supported their halt on VBs. Good learning on both sides.

 

^^^^this! In my supposedly massively overstaffed category, we have KLOAs offered, yet no vacation move-ups allowed. Along with that, the extra X-day has hardly every been offered, yet we almost always have plenty of coverage.

 

Hey you guys, it’s “-esque.”

 

My read on the SIL was a d*** measuring contest the way it went down. No arguments about how poorly the SILs were being used, however I would like to see them come back in a revised form. Such as -

1. Extra X day must be used to offer an SIL.

2. RLL to some lower (more jr) number that still achieves reserve coverage.

3. Some limit on ALV to offer SILs. I don’t want an 85hr ALV while others take month off.

4. Company offers X number of SIL. They then have to fill at least that many. Pilots then bid SIL by number hours pay they want. Pilot X bids 60hrs, pilot Y bids 55. Pilot Y gets the SIL.

 

That was my original thought....just put them into PBS with a bid preference. Say I take SIL if above 50 hrs etc..

 

I don't recall that being the reason. I do know that there were some vocal pilots making a fuss about the idea of doing them when they were suddenly happening. That was what I understood the reason to be.

 

That and the 350 delivery scope violation all happened in the same quick time frame.

Giving the company leniency on a test period that had already expired in was not the prudent thing to do.

 

On self service, there is a pilot enhanced disability benefit that had 6hrs by it last month and zero this month? Any idea why this was taken away. Any idea who to call to inquire?1800mydelta was worthless as usual.