Well, I can only guess as to how widespread these practices are, but we don't need to focus on what Sink r8 thinks might be happening, or knows is happening, or bring names and examples into the picture.

It's simply sufficient to remind everyone of trip parking. It was there, and the union stepped in. Is there any reason to think the guys that found that loophole are too stupid to find others?

Not everyone that likes the idea of 1.5>80 is a scheming [deleted]. In fact, many, most people that like it, like it for reasons that are completely innocent and rational. It really sounds like a nice concept, on paper. The same is true of OOBS. It's just that I'm trying to think of the unintended consequences.

When looking at things people advocate for, I usually find that it's about money, and it's often about steering money from one party to another. It's a good idea to identify the winners and losers. Poaching open time, or other bases' open time, or steering juuust a little bit of extra coin my way seem like such victimless crimes, when you think about the group as a whole. Not so much when you really identify the pocket the money comes out of, and the money it ends up in.

I would advise a LOT of critical thinking in this area.

 

That's fair to say. I philosophically am opposed to OOBS, because I think the flying in one base belongs to that base, not the pilot it's on loan to until they drop it or get sick. I am also philosophically opposed to people transferring flying without an open, transparent market for open time, within a base, and certainly between bases.

I do want pilots to be able to improve their schedule, and I see no reason we can't have a MUCH better SWP system, that doesn't prioritize WS, and lets everyone have equal access to opportunities to improve.

That being said, if we don't talk about unintended consequences a little bit now, we'll certainly be talking about them when we live under them. We're sure excellent at identified the ways we're getting screwed, after the fact. I'd like to be better at avoiding upfront.

My arguments against OOBS are not invalid just because they fit my bias.

 

Sorry Sailing, it was (still may be) going on "in base" with the swap board, with pilots picking up trips soley to give that trip to a junior friend. Most people probably didn't envision trip parking either when the swap board was created, so you have to think about these things ahead of time.....assuming you want to keep the process we have and not turn it into the Wild West for picking up trips.

I can ASSURE you that without restrictions, reps will be getting phone calls a week after this is implemented, with pilots who wanted to ws
a trip, saw it went to a senior pilot, and it is now on a junior pilots line in base XXX.

 

First of all, I'm against OOBS for reasons already stated. This is a productivity concession to the company. The only way you will get one is if the coverage is there or it's advantageous to the company. Thinking of the situation you propose, I'm not sure it's very likely a guy would be able to swap a trip that wasn't over the same days because of capped reserve days. I know it's possible if the days one wants to swap into are worse but how likely is that?

OOBS will redistribute time among bases and and make them more balanced month to month. Goodbye greenslips....

Denny

 

Delta pilots for boobs, not OOBS!

 

I agree with this and will say no to OOBS on my survey. The survey that DALPA will promptly ignore. But I am a fan of 1.5X over 80 hours. I'd like to hear the arguments against that idea.

Carl

 

Thx Carl. Off the top of my head, the only thing I can think of is...it will cause guys/gals to pick up trips they might not have to exceed that 80 hour threshold thereby removing some trips that may have gone out at 2X pay.

I think the current overtime/green slip system favors pilots who bid reserve (This is because of 117.). I think a 1.5X over 80 would favor the regular line bidder and, IMO, it will probably cut down on the number of green slips awarded. Not saying either is better just that this is the way I see it based on my experience this year under 117.

Denny

 

As long as there are pilots, there will be loopholes. I fly OOB WS's as part of my schedule, no more than 2 per month.

 

Will oobs result in fewer pilots needed? Yes.

End of discussion.

 

Bingo!!!!!

A lot of questions lead to a similar result - less Pilots.

No credit for pre-assigned events? No thanks.

OOBWS ? No thanks.

Apply Max pick-up to the swap board etc? Absolutely!!

Look Guys - The long awaited movement is finally upon us. It is starting to accelerate. Lets save us from ourselves and not screw it up by enabling the flight Hos among us to fly to FAR limits every month, or at least lets not make it any easier to do so than it already is.

Think long and hard about every item that lowers the need for Pilots - Who knows what productivity concession will be the one delaying your move into your next seat.

Scoop