Carl,

After digging several wells looking for information, I'm not sure my initial reaction to our MEC publications was entirely accurate. The regional guys got to see something and what they saw might not be big picture, or might be a reheated version of the "brand scope" porridge that is served as a distraction while we're carving up steak. There is a lot we are not being told for both competitive and labor reasons. Bastian came close to letting the cat out of the bag and says he is going to talk about it more later.

Trying to connect the dots can be successful. There are only a limited number of possible solutions which work for management. Connecting dots also lead John Nash into schizophrenia. Since we're not as smart as he was, we should be safe here :)

I was on the original PBS QC Committee when we first got PBS, I know all about it. I got burned out on it and left it to better men.

And yes, the company CAN and WILL re-run PBS using different threshold values, stack heights, etc. until they get the right amount of open time and reserves available, within the MOU's of course, but they do multiple runs using different thresholds, that's why it takes more than 5 minutes to run the bids every month.

They do the same thing with every A/E.

And some can work for the Delta pilots as well. If the pilots crewing DCI jets were on Delta's seniority list, we wouldn't have a problem. When Bastian says he needs to come up with creative solutions, I'd say that if he really, really wants to have some outsourced employees in the equation (a dumb idea, IMO), he can have an arrangement where the jets are wet-leased to the DCI carrier. In many cases, we're providing the airframe already, I believe, so why can't we provide crews. It doesn't even require bypassing existing crews. If an agreement can be reached, you pick up the pilots. I don't really see a reason we can't negotiate something that's mutually acceptable.

Except for pig-headedness.

It's time for engagement to be productive. There are some among us that think engagement is anathema to being union members, and some that think constructive engagement has been 100% successful. I think it's been mostly successful, but the test of any engagement must always remain the results. The purpose of engagement is not the relationship, but the mutual benefits. As long as both sides work well each other, we remain engageed. I'd advocate for a policy of results-based engagement, or productive engagement.

I recently heard a current PBS guy tell us the opposite at an LEC meeting: nothing gets done without mutual agreement. Is this guy lying, or were you referring to the original (Express) PBS, which has been extinct for over a decade?

No argument from me WRT AE's: they really, really **** with those things far too much.

Until Manning signs with some team, they can all use him as a boogeyman to hold down their current quarterback's salary demands -- just like legacy airlines do with the threat of outsourcing. :rolleyes:

Scoop,

I get the reason for making the PA, but my annoyance at hearing so many unnecessary ones is what has me in favor of letting the FAs make the PA for pax who get up too early.

As a commuter I see enough stops short of the gate and on 95% of them no one makes a move to get up, but on 80% of them I hear the PA asking everyone to keep their seats. My thought is if they're getting up the FAs will say something (they do; when I've seen them stand up early the FAs are on top of it and tell them to sit down). Again, if the captain is worried about it, fine, he's got the call and I'm behind him. But when I'm in the left seat in 15 years I'll get to make the call.:D

But Tebow.. and I really DO like the guy.. is just an RJ in a mainline world..

Uh oh.. now you did it.

Best way from JFK to EWR in less then 2 hours?

In fact, it is usually OUR (DALPA) PBS guys who make suggestions to the company, about changing the stack heights, thresholds, etc. and doing mulitple runs, so not as many pilots get shuffled, unstacked, etc. I don't think the PBS guy was lying, they do have a "mutual agreement" clause, that's why they have to do multiple runs.

If the DALPA QC guys don't like what they see, after the first run, they tell the company to "...change this and that, and run it again..." until they get numbers they can both agree on re. stack heights, reserves available, etc. That is the mutual agreement part.

If it were up to the company, they would do one run, award all the open time, (unstack every trip) and eliminate all the open time, have minimum reserves, or at least as few as they could get away with. And it would be ugly for us!

To be clear, I like our PBS system, now that I know how to bid! I got my first choice of days off, and trips, and I'm only at 50% of line holders in my category. BUT... if as the MEC claims, the AVERAGE pilot is flying 87 (not me, only 73 the last two months and next month!) then PBS has cost us Thousands of jobs.

87-75=12 extra hours, per pilot, on average. Let's leave out 33% of the pilots, for reserves and those stuck in training, that leaves about 8,000 pilots flying 12 extra hours every month. That equates to 96,000 extra hours being flown, per month. Divide that by 75 hours and you see we have eliminated the need for about 1,280 pilots, to do the same flying.

Want to know why you ain't movin' up? That's why.

Keep parking trips and you'll see more backwards movement.