SPLASH FOUR!

 

BOOM goes the dynamite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

How loud would the screeching be if this 'concession' were to stop?

Edit: change of wording

 

I have ridden around as the 3rd wheel on OE'S.

Undoubtedly LCAs would be on every FO's avoid list...... so the screeching would be coming from the most junior...... and give us the chance to tell all our 'uphill in the snow, both ways' stories....

 

Getting paid to stay home with zero obligation to the company is a "concession?" Righhhht.

I am sure that the collective pilot group is constantly bombarding their reps with "demands" to get rid of this "onerous concesssion"...all in the interest of unity and a desire to create jobs for young guys right out of college hoping for the dream seniority number at a mainline.

I'm not sure which is worse--that you honestly believe it or you just put it out their for kicks and giggle (I pick option two).

 

My guess is there would be ALOT of screeching!!






-- From management...

 

Herk,

I believe his point was allowing Pilots who are released to pick up open time and GS is the staffing concession. We all know staying home with pay is a good deal.

If released Pilots were not allowed to pick up open time it would affect staffing. How would the NYC 717 even operate these days if released Pilots could not pick up time?


If you would say the released Pilots could have a reserve obligation - I would agree with you................................

if we didn't already specifically trade for that a few years ago. I believe it was the one year lock on new hires. So if we get rid of/modify the OE release does the new hire seat lock go away?

Why so quick to assume the company point of view?

Scoop

 

I'm not "assuming the company point of view"...I'm calling out buffoonish posts.

The "company point of view" would be to go back to the draconian LCA provisions that we agreed to in BK, in which the released pilot not only owed the company recovery obligations, he was at the very top of the list, even ahead of any and all reserves (no matter how overstaffed the category might be)...AND if in an international category could be assigned a trip that returned up to 30 hours after the original trip! In fact it was so punitive that most guys put "avoid trips if LCA" as their first choice.

Then we improved that somewhat (you know, with those E-VILL "Moakist" steps of lots of small improvements when the opportunity arises) when the LCA recovery only came after WS and with quite a few more limitations.

Then we finally achieved our current setup, which is the same as it was back in the good times, where the pilot has zero obligation to the company, but gets paid as if he flew the entire trip. I can assure you that while the company appreciates all those guys GS and WSing, they would much, much prefer how it was post-BK.

I surely would vote against any TA that regressed to that extreme, but let's not for a nanosecond think that our current setup is a "concession." It is only a concession FROM the company TO us.

 

Yeah.... its quite the clawback victory. Release for FOs from OE down...... billion dollar retirement plan and hourly rates plus inflation to go.

Wait.... seeing the moakists were practitioners of the give up to get something faith, maybe we gave up getting all that back in order to get the FO release back?

Wow. What a great deal. Touchdown.

As with every other management 'concession' in the era of cooperative appeasement, it is fact certain the FO OE release was paid for in full by a sympathetic concession on our part.

 

I believe you are falling prey to the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.

It would be better from a pilot pay perspective for the pilot group if FO's were either not released for OE trips or could not pick up extra time in the footprint of their original trip. Those FO's sitting on jump seats (or at home) would not be available for WS's to cover trips. A decrease in the number of WS's awarded to pilots would increase the number of GS's awarded to pilots. This would increase average pilot pay.

Pilots having to actually stay on the trip would make it harder for commuters to be in position for both normal and WS rotations. This would also increase the number of GS's, and it would increase average pilot pay.

By decreasing the number of FO's available to fly airplanes, it would force the company to hire more FO's. This would make people relatively more senior which would allow them to bid better schedules.

A change like this would change the pilot bidding dynamic. Most people would prefer not to sit on a jump seat for an entire rotation. The LCA trips would not be as lucrative if people could not WS or GS in the original trip's footprint, so LCA trips would go more junior. Instead of the top 10% of FO's being able to jump on the LCA trips, the greater GS opportunities produced by this change would be more evenly distributed among the FO's. This would create less incentive to camp out at the top of a FO category. This would lead to more FO's bidding higher paying positions which would create a greater training churn leading to even more GS opportunities and increased average pilot pay.

Releasing an FO for an IOE trip is less beneficial to the pilot group than forcing that FO to stay on the airplane during the trip, but in order to see that, one must look at secondary and tertiary consequences.