OK, I disagree with that then. Scenario: I am an in base guy, and I want to pick up a trip in open time but I have a trip that conflicts. I am trying like hell to drop it but capped reserve days prevent it. That trip gets picked up by another base's pilot, and miraculously I then find someone that wants my trip. Dammit... that trip I DID want is now gone. That sucks. MEX here I come.

I offered a solution to that.

Longevity based pay? :D

Yes you did, but I think the company shouldn't be able to use out of base reserves to cover another bases open time simply by changing a rotation number and deadheading a guy. However, they can. So, your solution only makes a manpower/QOL negative repair to a system which IMO shouldn't be in place anyway.

Not sure I follow you. My solution makes it possible for a guy in NY to have the ATL guys count towards his reserve required number. Nothing more. The company is gonna do what they are gonna do in order to fly the schedule. If that entails DHing a pilot from another base to cover (which it often does) then all I am saying is that that ability should extend to us for accounting purposes. Now if you are suggesting that we can stop them from DHing that ATL pilot to NY to cover, I am all ears, but I would think that would result in broken rotations and reroutes out the wazoo.

Oh, and How bout them Vols? I watched it in a bar in Manhattan this afternoon. lots of rednecks in NYC. :D:cool:

lulz... wouldn't hurt. ;)

Carl, I think everything above 80 hours should pay 2X, not 1.5. I think 2X is a general disincentive to Delta, and they'll increase manning to prevent doing it on a regular basis. But 1.5X is just enough that Delta will just let us all fly til we die, rather than increase staffing. That's why I'm opposed to it. It's not enough penalty to Delta.

If punitive action is what you seek, I am hard pressed to find a way to justify paying 2X above 80 hours as being an effective method of doing so.... Care to explain how you believe it would?

I'm not looking to be punitive. I'm trying to find a way to protect us from ourselves. You and I have been around long enough to remember when this was a good job --- 75 hour hard cap, zero medical premiums, DB plan. Now, guys are flying 90+ hours at straight pay on a regular basis. Guys fly 100+ hours credit in vacation months, effectively flying a full month and getting their vacation pay on top of that. As a result, seat progression has been non-existent for many of us for many, many years.

I'm simply asking us to consider rolling back the limits on straight pay flying. Is that so bad?

Understood and agree 2X over 80. That would effectively get rid of green slips which are all but like Sasquatch as far as I've seen. Only the top 5 or 10 guys in my category ever see them and I'd like to see the wealth spread out more evenly.

Carl