flamebait... Mods?????????????????????????

Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit Methamphetamines.

767 Line holder at merger. Could hold Saturdays off. Never talked to Crew Scheduling unless picking up a green slip. Integrated with DC9 reserves and pilots on furlough bypass (who obviously did not want to come back to NWA at their seniority). Since the merger, displaced and pushed to the bottom of reserve on that equipment. Pay cut in accordance with status reductions. With PBS reserve, I now NEVER have a weekend off.

So, I agree with you. Just figured it was not worth bringing up ... .

You're right. As to the argument that it would create vacancies in higher-paying categories, that's true, but that doesn't benefit everyone. It would only benefit those that are able to advance to the next higher category.

I'm senior in my category, and some padding of the list would allow me to move to the 764 or 777 left seat with reasonable seniority. Would I make more money? Yes. If this made us less competitive, would it be in my long-term best interest? No.

My preference, however, would be to have a more productive workforce and a healthier company. I think this puts more money in my pocket, and provides greater job security for those junior to me. I'm fine with the manning level as it is now.

Really?

Looking in trip assignments, it appears most categories are melting down. A lot of broke up rotations, premium flying with conflict, canceling flights due to (ahem) weather.

So, should we man the airline year-round for that occasional winter weather event, and allow reserves to get 70 hours pay per month, while flying only 20 hours?

Bear in mind that we just had major storms in both ATL and NYC.

This brings up a good point. No work force in history has become better compensated over the long run by being less productive. Less productivity means less profits and less profits means a smaller pie for us to share.

I hear a lot of "more pay for less work" being bantered about, especially with regards to "restoration". For the folks that this wil be their last contract, I can see how that is beneficial. But for those whose livelihood relies on the long term health of this company, I see only negatives.

I want to see a larger pilot group but only because of organic growth due to winning market share from our competitors not because of feather bedding.

The NC has a tough job. How do you address the needs of a 12000 member employee group fairly? The above issue is one of many that illustrate the divergent interests of a group that big and varied. Everyone's wants and needs are legitimate, but some could be diametrical opposed to others.

Fwiw, before the merger I like shiny objects, now I just kinda like them. ! sorry but I thought I'd contribute to the pointless discussion of the day :rolleyes:

Carry on

I'm not arguing in favor of pure featherbedding. There was undeniably some of that in past contracts. (trips touching vacations, composite lines, etc.) But you guys have swung too far in the other direction.

Do you favor any restrictions on pilot "productivity"? Should we be able to fly right up to the FAR maximums? Should we be able to sell back our vacations for cash and work right through them? Should we remove all limitations on "picking up open time"? I could go on and on. The last few years have seen our pilot group shrink massively due to increases in pilot efficiency. I don't like it. Not one bit. We are working more days for less money.

We are "productive" enough.
I want more money and more time off. And I want it now.

Everybody's out of bankruptcy except us.

It's not worth it. Just ignore the post. It's flame.