Latest Negotiator's Notepad
05-25-2016 | 03:45 PM
#172
Moderator
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,438
Likes: 438
Keep OE trip pulls as they are, except to change that the we can no longer pick up, or be assigned trips during the footprint of the originally scheduled trip. It should only impact 2% of the pilot group, right? 
Should be a no brainer for the company.
Should be a no brainer for the company.
Last edited by crewdawg; 05-25-2016 at 03:58 PM.
05-25-2016 | 03:48 PM
#173
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 100
From: Road construction signholder
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.
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.
I can assure you that you are in the vast, statistical outlier minority on this one. I wouldn't waste much time trying to convince anyone either, as it would be a futile effort.
05-25-2016 | 04:07 PM
#174
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,253
Likes: 96
From: DAL 330
I get the "secondary and tertiary" consequences. I cannot believe that you think it a good thing that we force pilots to sit on a JS all so some kid currently in middle school can have a feather-bedded-created job 3 decades from now.
I can assure you that you are in the vast, statistical outlier minority on this one. I wouldn't waste much time trying to convince anyone either, as it would be a futile effort.
I can assure you that you are in the vast, statistical outlier minority on this one. I wouldn't waste much time trying to convince anyone either, as it would be a futile effort.
We are not that far apart on this. I think it is a very good deal for FOs as I said. I can also see a great benefit to the company.
In my mind it is currently a win/win. Yes, the company would rather have the Good olé days of BK work-rules still in place - but why are you even bringing that up?
By the way what would happen to the 717B in NYC if FOs displaced for OE were riding around the JS? This is not feather-bedding 3 decades from now - it is helping the company overcome their own shortsightedness in delaying hiring to show a first quarter profit a few years back.
Scoop
05-25-2016 | 04:17 PM
#175
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,383
Likes: 121
If the company offers you 1,000,000/hr in exchange for Pulling OE trips before the bid, you would vote no?
I wouldn't.
While I respect the fact that people have their wants for a new deal, this sort of thinking doesn't sit right with me. The point of my example is that there is a point in which a deal can be made, it just may be more than what the company will sell for which keeps things status quo.
I find the idea of voting no for something no matter what to be dangerous and shortsighted and I feel that our guys are smarter than that.
Keep your emotions out of this, see what the deal is, weigh the pros and cons, make your choice.
But, please people don't make rash yes or no votes if they "touch" certain things.
I wouldn't.
While I respect the fact that people have their wants for a new deal, this sort of thinking doesn't sit right with me. The point of my example is that there is a point in which a deal can be made, it just may be more than what the company will sell for which keeps things status quo.
I find the idea of voting no for something no matter what to be dangerous and shortsighted and I feel that our guys are smarter than that.
Keep your emotions out of this, see what the deal is, weigh the pros and cons, make your choice.
But, please people don't make rash yes or no votes if they "touch" certain things.
05-25-2016 | 04:47 PM
#176
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
If the company offers you 1,000,000/hr in exchange for Pulling OE trips before the bid, you would vote no?
I wouldn't.
While I respect the fact that people have their wants for a new deal, this sort of thinking doesn't sit right with me. The point of my example is that there is a point in which a deal can be made, it just may be more than what the company will sell for which keeps things status quo.
I find the idea of voting no for something no matter what to be dangerous and shortsighted and I feel that our guys are smarter than that.
Keep your emotions out of this, see what the deal is, weigh the pros and cons, make your choice.
But, please people don't make rash yes or no votes if they "touch" certain things.
I wouldn't.
While I respect the fact that people have their wants for a new deal, this sort of thinking doesn't sit right with me. The point of my example is that there is a point in which a deal can be made, it just may be more than what the company will sell for which keeps things status quo.
I find the idea of voting no for something no matter what to be dangerous and shortsighted and I feel that our guys are smarter than that.
Keep your emotions out of this, see what the deal is, weigh the pros and cons, make your choice.
But, please people don't make rash yes or no votes if they "touch" certain things.
05-25-2016 | 04:50 PM
#177
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,116
Likes: 1
$999,999/hr is an absolute no for me...... but $1,000,000/hr? Okay.
The rest of you slobs will have to cut your own deal.
what you are hearing is for most, the re-opener thresholds are perceived as falling in line with minimal expectations. And even singular item concessions are unacceptable.
The rest of you slobs will have to cut your own deal.
what you are hearing is for most, the re-opener thresholds are perceived as falling in line with minimal expectations. And even singular item concessions are unacceptable.
05-25-2016 | 04:55 PM
#178
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
On the other hand the massive Profit Sharing concessions would affect all of us. This last TA was a grand slam attempt by management to take a lot of leverage away from us so that future contract negotiations would greatly be in management's favor. And if I have to explain this to anybody...which I'm not....you need to have a reality check. Unnecessary Concessions in a time and atmosphere of NO CONCESSIONS.
05-25-2016 | 04:58 PM
#179
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
The reasons I am not in favor of keeping FO's on the jump seat are that it would be an inconvenience to those FO's, and it would make it harder for people to commute to work.
I would like to see us prevent anyone from picking up any extra flying during the footprint of a trip from which they are released. This would create more GS's for the pilot group, and it would increase pilot pay. I think that's a good thing.
It's not something that I think is a realistic change, because the company wouldn't go for it, and most pilots (most people in general) only think about the immediate most obvious consequences, so I would expect them to vote against it. They would see it as hurting the top 10% of FO's without seeing it helping the other 90%.
In case it's not clear, I'm strongly against pulling the OE trips from the bid package before the PBS run.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
