Originally Posted by RockyMtMadDog (Post 1965245)

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

Originally Posted by Herkflyr (Post 1965059)

So in your universe having the A350 at 777 rates was a "fail?" At least your screen name is accurate.

Originally Posted by thinkstraight (Post 1965254)

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?

Originally Posted by Herkflyr (Post 1965059)

So in your universe having the A350 at 777 rates was a "fail?" At least your screen name is accurate.

Originally Posted by RockyMtMadDog (Post 1965161)

In the "old days," if your trip was dropped for an OE, you were subject to recovery flying. That was wrong. The fix, however, results in some FOs who make a mini-career out of getting paid to rarely fly or who make well north of what their counterparts in the left seat make. Either way, it's featherbedding, and provides a disproportionate contractual benefit to a small population.

Originally Posted by RockyMtMadDog (Post 1965184)

It's not about insecurity. If you think it's that simple, then the guy with the oxygen deprived tiny brain is looking at you in the mirror. It's simply a productivity issue--getting paid for the work you do vs don't do. Perhaps a middle ground answer would be a hybrid system. Let the FOs drop the trips as they do now, but then they go to the bottom of the trip coverage list. Wouldn't that at least spread the wealth?(. . . although I am not sure the company would buy off as it does not address productivity that much).

Originally Posted by RockyMtMadDog (Post 1965245)

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

Originally Posted by RockyMtMadDog (Post 1965253)

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?

Originally Posted by Klondike Bear (Post 1965197)

I am surprised I have to explain this but your way would add more guys to reserve. Greenslips happen when there are no more reserves. Your suggestion would have more people on reserve so less Greenslips. Does that make sense?

Originally Posted by scoop (Post 1965263)

it all comes down to seniority. You are ignoring seniority in one example but applying it in another. Your logic is not consistent.

Scoop