Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1953426)

Well I'd have to disagree with Sam on selling the LCA trips back to the company, and I'm not even an F/O. Even when I WAS an F/O, I was only lucky enough to get an LCA trip drop maybe once or twice, but it was a GREAT deal! I stayed home, enjoyed playing with my 4 young kids. Others prefer to pick up another trip and make more money.

I like the system as it is, and I doubt there are too many guys who are dropping their whole month to sit home, I'll bet they are picking up trips and flying. That helps the company with it's staffing problem, does it not?

Yeah, they have to pay him twice, but who decided to buy all these different fleet types, that require all this training?

I don't want to see it go away, just one more QOL concession. Heck, I might even bid F/O my last 3 years just to get in on that program.

What would I "Trade" it for?

Um... How about $3 Million, each.

The value of my lost DB plan.

Originally Posted by MtEverest (Post 1953387)

This question was posed to Sam on FB:

"I've got a question for Sam Derosa, who is running for ATL Captain Rep. Sam, what do you think about the LCA Trip grab provision in the last TA taking 75% of the LCA trips away from FOs? A good friend told me you told him "I don't think FOs should sit at home getting paid to do nothing." Is that true Sam?

Why should we get rid of "choice?" Why do some people want to get rid of "good deals?" If this is how Sam actually feels, then my previous support for him is dropped. There are certain issues that are important to different groups within our pilot group. This one is important to ALL FOs and junior Captains. Please respond Sam."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although in Sam's response (below) he defends against selling the LCA line grab it appears he is open to selling it in some form. As we get ready to bring on new reps, it's one of those situations, "speak now or forever hold your peace"...we need to be clear on what we expect before these guys get into office. Read on and you decide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I thought the change of the LCA trip pulls in the recent failed TA was a terrible idea. I remember flying with your good friend and I told him I thought it was a terrible idea. I also told him all of the following things behind my reasoning. We also discussed how it probably came to an item for negotiations.

I said if this became a big issue for the company from a manning perspective, I could see how management would seek a solution.

From a public affairs perspective,and a business perspective, it is very hard to justify why it makes sense to pay employees to sit at home and receive full pay. And that I believed there is a sensible compromise solution. I don’t know exactly what that solution is but I’m sure there is a much better solution than what was put in our TA.

And, I said, that if this item were to be modified the value would have to be recouped in other areas of the contract. I also said that as this becomes a bigger problem it creates greater leverage for us to modify this rule to our greater advantage. NOT to the company’s greater advantage.

I will add to what I previously told your friend, I do believe we all signed up to fly airplanes for compensation. I also believe in utilizing everything possible to create leverage to increase our compensation (Pay, Work Rules, Benefits). Both parties approach negotiations needing things. Sometimes you get them, sometimes you don't. What matters is not to have one group of the membership unjustly take burden for the rest. The idea of extracting complete (or greater) value for a particular item is not off limits to me. Would I be interested in simply giving that away absolutely not. In fact, I voted no on the TA in part because I thought this provision was not fully thought through."

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 1953761)

1) Data. Show me some data where these pilots are sitting at home. I think they are picking up additional trips, helping productivity. I agree it is a good deal because the days pay similar to green slips. The opportunity to make double pay is the most sought after situation for both Captains and F/Os.

Originally Posted by Sounds (Post 1955269)

This I find interesting. Surely the Company tracks this, but I doubt the Neg comt. thought to ask about the data. And I doubt we would get access to this data even if they had.

This is the same type of problem with sick leave. They say there are these abusive pilots taking advantage of the system, well let's target them not the whole pilot base. Why not step up draconian measures on those abusing things and leave it as it for the average pilot...

Originally Posted by El10 (Post 1955288)

Why target the users? They agreed to give up to 270 hours a year, each pilot should be able to use that 270 hours. Who are the offenders? Who is to judge if they are abusing the system? A deal is a deal. They agreed and so did the pilots.

Originally Posted by Herkflyr (Post 1955289)

Not so Kemosabe. If they "gave" us a certain amount to be used (or banked if not used) then you would be looking at 50-70 hrs a year. No airline with a bank-if-unused system allocates 270 hrs a year.

Our system is more like your car insurance. The amount "given" is a large amount with the actuarial assumption that eventually most use some, a handful use none, and a handful use all (totaled vehicle etc).

But the assumption is not that all drivers user all their limits every year... even if legally they could.

Originally Posted by El10 (Post 1955288)

Why target the users? They agreed to give up to 270 hours a year, each pilot should be able to use that 270 hours. Who are the offenders? Who is to judge if they are abusing the system? A deal is a deal. They agreed and so did the pilots.

Originally Posted by Herkflyr (Post 1955289)

Not so Kemosabe. If they "gave" us a certain amount to be used (or banked if not used) then you would be looking at 50-70 hrs a year. No airline with a bank-if-unused system allocates 270 hrs a year.

Our system is more like your car insurance. The amount "given" is a large amount with the actuarial assumption that eventually most use some, a handful use none, and a handful use all (totaled vehicle etc).

But the assumption is not that all drivers user all their limits every year... even if legally they could.

Originally Posted by El10 (Post 1955332)

Look at this way. If sick time was labeled PPT, everyone would get the full benefit of it. Either time off or paid out. The sick and healthy would enjoy equal benefits.

The pilots agreed and the company agreed to allow 270, now they regret it. Thats fine, that is what negotiations are for. The point is how can you endorse the company discriminately picking who is and who is not an abuser?