That's one way of fixing it, but again it's a major concession that needs to be monetized.

Don't forget that once we give it away it'll never come back.....

Not really, in the old days the FO had to ride in the back. There was a window where that was eliminated and then we went to the recovery system.

I don't see that as a concession at all. I believe the same number of WS/GS will still be awarded, it will just change who gets them.

Only a small population may currently benefit but it is or will be available to all FOs very soon. The way we are hiring every FO on property will be able to bid into an FO position and hold the seniority needed to bid with LCA within 2-3 years.

Most FOs don't even bother to try to bid with LCA for various reasons but the benefit will be available to all currently on property shortly.

You call it featherbedding and you can make an argument for that, but we negotiated for it and in my opinion gave it away far too cheaply.

Didn't we just negotiate to improve the 23k recovery or something similar by conceding a seat lock for new hires? Did the seat lock go away with the IOE trip drop? No it was increased to two years.

What good are our contracts when every time something becomes limiting or impacting we just redraw the line? I am talking about:

Scope - every time the limits kick in we acquiesce.
JV compliance - Company out of compliance - Create a new baseline.
IOE drops - Well now that it has impact - eliminate it.

Profit sharing - Great formula - lets water it down so management can manipulate it.

And also sick leave and a few others.

Finally think about the A350 pay rates matching the 777 rates. If we continue along the current practice of negotiating away numerous benefits on the next contract I could easily see the following scenario:

Delta: "We want to order XX more A350s but in order to do so we can not pay at the 777 rate."

DALPA: "Thank you Sir, may I have another."

I am kidding, of course, but the point remains, we too easily give up what we already have paid for in previous negotiations.

Scoop

I have no problem with guys not being able to pick up extra flying, that would not negatively affect manning at all. You could still get paid to be at home.

You are totally correct. I think it is unfair that the 777 guys make so much since it "provides a disproportionate contractual benefit to a small population."

So with your logic we should reduce the 777 rates and increase the NB rates - small population and all.

Scoop

And yet . . .

Weak logic. Very weak. In the case I cite, pilots WITHIN THEIR OWN CATEGORY are benefiting disproportionately to the rest of the category.

Exactly. Some can't see through their anger. The downside to this "solution" from management's view however, is that it does not address productivity. And before someone accuses me of carrying management's water, recall Sun Tzu's "Know your enemy and know yourself . . ." If you can't understand their point of view, we'll never reach an agreement. Guys are pounding their chests about how comfortable they are with the current agreement.

For how long?

We may be missing the point. When a pilot gets bought off for OE then turns around and GS or WS another trip this actually helps the company since they do not have the manning to cover the trips otherwise.

This is why the company wants to eliminate the trips from the pot so that they will have all the other trips covered, they don't want pilots unavailable unless they are sick.

WS and GS actually helps the manning. Can you imagine how many flights cancelled if nobody picks up extra flying?