Alan Shore

My fellow flamingo, it sounds as though you are thinking about out of base swap with the pot. I believe that the survey is asking specifically and only about pilot to pilot swaps when those pilots are in different bases. Reserve coverage is not considered on the swap board, and the Company has no control over the process whatsoever.

Alan Shore

I believe I saw an option for that in the survey.

tsquare

I would rather have a bigger pay increase than incur the loss of W2 that the overstaffing you advocate would probably cause. I get it... but I think it would take a ton of guys, or a cap (number) that I personally wouldn't like, or a loss of some other benefit. I cannot see how we could get this kind of manning without another huge concession.

Edit: In a later post, PG said something about how these trips affect the manning formula. The only Manning formula I believe exists is one on how to win football games. (OK... PM haters gonna hate, so go ahead and throw out the comments about not winning THE game) I have yet to see any affect on the number of pilots due to shortages or overages within any reasonable amount of time. I think it is merely for show because the airline evolves continuously, and as the category morphs naturally, so does the number of pilots. I think this has little to do with any formula triggers.

scambo1

My proposal would result in an understaffed situation, Not Overstaffed, how you can't see that is beyond me.

tsquare

so-or-reeee I guess I am dense then, so you better explain it is simpler terms. If you want to cover in base trips only with in base reserves, you have 2 options: Fly reserves more or hire more reserves. What's the other option that would result in under-manning that I am too dense to see?

And was the highlighted comment really necessary? I though that we were having a discussion. I was not trying to wizz on your Wheaties here.

scambo1

I must've pushed some button on my ipad that changed the font color. I don't even know how to do that. So, it was completely unintentional.

Since the company can use reserves to cover out of base trips, it allows them to underman reserves at various bases. Not allowing this practice requires more reserves which equals more people. Or it requires more greenslips.

tsquare

I highlighted your quote.

You said this:

Then you said this:


So how are you going to get them to staff properly, which would result in a requirement to have MORE pilots in category, not less?

Alan Shore

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Are you saying that you'd rather increase hourly rates than become less productive? Isn't the corollary to that being willing to trade some current productivity for higher pay rates too?

Realize that there is a huge balancing act here. In LOA 46, we traded productivity by giving up the cap, etc. so that we would not have to take as big a pay cut. The upside was that those who wanted to could fly more, thereby making up some of the W2 loss. The downside was that upgraded slowed, potentially offsetting some or all of that W2 gain.

I've never run the numbers, so I don't know whether it's better to sell productivity and accept the slower upgrade to higher paying equipment in return for higher pay rates than one would otherwise have had vs. keeping (or buying back) productivity for quicker upgrades but having lower pay rates overall.

I believe we saw that effect specifically when the company thought they could run the airline on 300 newhires per year, but quickly realized they needed more just to keep afloat of the staffing formula. As it is, some categories are right at the minimum, which means that they cannot add so much as a minute of credit time to the bid package with violating the PWA.

tsquare

Whoa whoa whoa, back up the truck here. You just made a huge leap in this discussion. All I was saying is that we have a current level of manning. In order to keep from having trips broken up, or OOB DHers from covering trips, manning will have to go up. The result of that will have to be less flying and a W2 cut. I guess I have adjusted my life to a certain level of flying each month, and cutting that without a corresponding increase in pay is not worth it to me in the confines of this discussion. So right there, we are going to have to get a bigger hourly pay increase than we would have otherwise to get to the same W2.

I don't want a cap. I want more money to do the flying I have become accustomed to. There is no way that you can get the kind of pay increase you are talking about having to get to both institute a cap, hire more pilots to (essentially) overstaff each category and equal the W2 I would get without all the fluff. It's just math. Remember, the pot of money is only so big, and the company doesn't care how we allocate it, right? All these things being talked about will cut the pie into more slices. A 10% increase in hourly rates and a 12% decrease in flying is a W2 paycut.

The slower upgrade argument is a thing of the past too. Any of this would be minute, and unnoticed.

Alan Shore

Sorry, I didn't mean to scare you there. All I'm saying is that productivity affects both pay and QOL, and that changes in productivity can be bought or sold if we wish. In the end, I'm not sure whether the resulting gain or loss in pay rates (assuming an even exchange) is a net gain one way or the other.

SWAPA clearly decided a long time ago that they would be better off selling productivity for pay rates. As a result, their W2s have been very impressive, and they still get plenty of days off. Variances in their staffing levels affect that to a certain extent, but they seem to be generally happy with their contract structure overall.