|
Originally Posted by Imapilot2
(Post 1121679)
I would rather us have NO incentive to fly more. I would like to have incentives to fly less. Higher pay instead of flying more. The guys that ***** themselves out will do it no matter what the pay is but I definitely don't want incentives across the board to have all flying more. How about reserve of 65 instead of 70. I cringe every time someone says lets raise the reserves even higher like 75. That won't be just pay, that will also be more work for reserves which takes away from whats available for the line holders. More pay not more flying.
|
Originally Posted by Imapilot2
(Post 1121679)
That won't be just pay, that will also be more work for reserves which takes away from whats available for the line holders. More pay not more flying.
This is not the first time that I have heard this reasoning, but the reserve guarantee is seperate from the max a reserve can fly. We could certainly have an increased reserve guarantee, while maintaining the same max for the month. More pay, no extra flying or decreased manning. dl |
Ima, explain this a little more, 65 hour reserve pay in exchange for?
Improved credit for reserve? Equal GS pay as regular GS? Pay for SC? Ability to pick up trips two weeks out? Reduced reserve days? That kind of stuff... |
Popeye's
Originally Posted by dragon
(Post 1121233)
And the Popeye's they replaced it with is but a shadow of the one on B in ATL. The DTW Popeye's is much more expensive (even with discount) and they short change you in food. The completely ice the cake its automated ordering, so there is no one to call you "Sugar", "Darlin" or whatever name they think of that I can't put on here.
|
Anybody having trouble with icrew today? Everytime I click on it I get booted of Dlnet too. Guess I'm free of my rsv today :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by Imapilot2
(Post 1121679)
I cringe every time someone says lets raise the reserves even higher like 75. That won't be just pay, that will also be more work for reserves which takes away from whats available for the line holders. More pay not more flying.
|
AngryPilotWife
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1118524)
That hurt. I guess I'll go drop a pine tree in my neighbors house, then run to the bar and think about it!:D
Nice blog, btw. Your wife writes well. |
Originally Posted by 1234
(Post 1121824)
How do you figure this? The company can not hold back time during the bidding process and must award as many lines as possible.
|
Originally Posted by iceman49
(Post 1121846)
PBS could use what is called a "global solution" to enable more people to hold lines.
If the TLV was raised as part of raising reserve guarantee, then there would be higher ALVs and maybe less reserves needed too, but there would be less lines too. Less pilots needed too. Less pilots means that some the junior reserve guys asking for higher guarantee would be bumped off their aircraft and displaced to a different aircraft or base. Some people on the junior equipment would be displaced to the street. (barring a political decision to keep manning fat for future growth). Everything is interconnected. |
Originally Posted by iaflyer
(Post 1121852)
By "global solution" do you mean taking a good trip a senior pilot wants and giving it to a junior pilot so he/she can have a line? I'm pretty sure DALPA doesn't allow that.
If the TLV was raised as part of raising reserve guarantee, then there would be higher ALVs and maybe less reserves needed too, but there would be less lines too. Less pilots needed too. Less pilots means that some the junior reserve guys asking for higher guarantee would be bumped off their aircraft and displaced to a different aircraft or base. Some people on the junior equipment would be displaced to the street. (barring a political decision to keep manning fat for future growth). Everything is interconnected. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:43 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands