Originally Posted by Sputnik (Post 1953818)

I had arranged a long block of time off, and of course got sick for all of it. This just happened to occur when the TA was presented, so I read that part closely. I had a cold that lasted three weeks. I generally fly each week, under current system that would have worked out to about 63 hours sick, just about killing my sick leave balance as a new hire, but not even hitting verification trigger. Handy as I never went to a doc (worst cold of my life, but it was a cold). Under the TA that would have been 20 days sick, right past the trigger and four days from having to sign a med release.

I consider that a loss.

Bigger picture, I'm a privacy guy. I can't really imagine why the company would need any form of access to my medical records. Especially when the verification trigger is so low. The current PWA does allow for a med release, the trigger for which seem more than adequate to allow for investigation of abusers. So why lower the trigger so much? I'll skip the many conspiracy theories, but I personally didn't like it.

As for the 8 percent, I think it was offset somewhat by the concessions. But I didn't really care if it was or wasn't. To ME, 15 was overall a worse contract than 12. And that's how I voted.

Originally Posted by SawF16 (Post 1953990)

You would have gone past the verification requirement trigger of the current contract as well.

Originally Posted by Ferd149 (Post 1953956)

And.......just to piggyback on New's point, the LC/FO provision was a flat out abrogation of seniority. Either we live by seniority or we don't, it's really that simple.

When you address New's comments, would you please explain why the company didn't just try and reestablish recovery obligations. That made more sense than the overly complex PBS solution.

And NO.......I'm not advocating recovery obligations:D

Ferd

Originally Posted by orvil (Post 1953998)

Yes, he would. However, he wouldn't be stuck in a rolling 3 year review for the rest of his career.

It was a crappy solution that we rejected.

Let's move forward.

Originally Posted by thinkstraight (Post 1953986)

Vacation and CQ 15 minutes pay no credit was a concession detriment to QOL.

CQ must pay 5:15 per day and full credit. Vacation must also be full credit. I don't want to have to work harder due to CQ or vacation.

Originally Posted by SawF16 (Post 1954000)

I would bet the co would have preferred the old recovery system back. In that system they would get nearly 100% of OE trips covered with little or no opportunity for the FO in question to do "premium" GS or additional pay WS trips- they would be first in line for whatever horrid, noncommutable trip was in the pot. You may not remember because there wasn't much hiring since the merger until after we got OE drop back, but pretty much every FO had AVOID LCA as a very high bid line. This is very close to 100% OE trip removal from the bid pack.

I'm not insinuating the TA policy was better than what we have. It was better than the old recovery system however. My guess though is that there would have been less angst about going back to the old recovery system than the TA proposed system. I know it doesn't make sense, just my hunch.

Originally Posted by SawF16 (Post 1954011)

There were plenty of gives/concessions in TA15. I don't think you can really call an undeniable improvement to our current book a "concession" however. It may not have met what you wanted, but this piece was a gain. Yes I know it's 15 minutes a day. It's still a gain. And yes, I was expecting the pay no credit part, but I thought we should easily have been in the 4:15-4:30 range. We work way harder in the sim than the line, and a 7 day vacation should at least pay what a mid range 5 day pays (28+).

Originally Posted by SawF16 (Post 1954000)

I would bet the co would have preferred the old recovery system back. In that system they would get nearly 100% of OE trips covered with little or no opportunity for the FO in question to do "premium" GS or additional pay WS trips- they would be first in line for whatever horrid, noncommutable trip was in the pot. You may not remember because there wasn't much hiring since the merger until after we got OE drop back, but pretty much every FO had AVOID LCA as a very high bid line. This is very close to 100% OE trip removal from the bid pack.

I'm not insinuating the TA policy was better than what we have. It was better than the old recovery system however. My guess though is that there would have been less angst about going back to the old recovery system than the TA proposed system. I know it doesn't make sense, just my hunch.

Originally Posted by SawF16 (Post 1954000)

I would bet the co would have preferred the old recovery system back. In that system they would get nearly 100% of OE trips covered with little or no opportunity for the FO in question to do "premium" GS or additional pay WS trips- they would be first in line for whatever horrid, noncommutable trip was in the pot. You may not remember because there wasn't much hiring since the merger until after we got OE drop back, but pretty much every FO had AVOID LCA as a very high bid line. This is very close to 100% OE trip removal from the bid pack.

I'm not insinuating the TA policy was better than what we have. It was better than the old recovery system however. My guess though is that there would have been less angst about going back to the old recovery system than the TA proposed system. I know it doesn't make sense, just my hunch.