SawF16

Not to mention if the trip is open on FO and Capt both it's generally going to be among the worst in the bid pack. The co can pull it, but then they have to convince the LCA to actually give up the trip they bid to fly it. (Absent the LCA being on reserve.) My understanding of current practice in this situation (common on SAQ like HNL on 737) is they get paid the higher of the 2 rotations if they conflict- so they may be willing to do it if they are dropping a long trip for something shorter- but in that instance the co could easily spend more than just buying the FO off of the LCA trip in the first place.

Planetrain

This is true, but when I say everyone has a chance at a particular rotation, it would have to be a rotation no one bid for in PBS.

That is, the bid packet has every rotation, pilots submit bids for the month, PBS awards... and then every single pilot in category would have to purposely NOT bid for a particular trip AND be openA/openB. Only then could they pull the trip for OE, AND it would be subject to your other restrictions.

My point is after PBS initial runs, only garbage trips are left in the pot, and they would have to be double-garbage to have both openA/openB. If by some freak accident you forgot to bid for said trip, the company only has one chance to pull the trip before you get to PCS for it again.

This is remarkably different than OE trip pulls in the failed TA. The problem with that methodology was there was an extremely toxic provision where the LCA trips - the Venices, Stuttgarts, Munichs, etc would be removed from senior pilots. And all the cascading issues associated.

This new proposal is more like the 5-leg day Daytons and Flints that would be in leftover garbage land. And you would have had a chance to bid them in PBS first.

TED74

This takes some sting out of it, but I still fear second- and third-order I may not anticipate. And I'm not sure unstacking doesn't necessarily cause junior bidders to potentially miss a desirable trip that without the provision he might be able to swap into. I certainly think this proposal is better than TA15. But since TA15 is by definition "nothing", that ain't saying much. Don't let anchor bias lead you to believe something is better than it really is.

Scoop

It is certainly much better than the failed TA but that is a pretty low standard. One issue that I do have heartburn with regarding this issue is that I believe we acquiesced to a new hire seat freeze to obtain our current LCA drop language.

So if we are making concessions on our LCA trip drop language do we revisit the new hire seat freeze? Unfortunately I think we all know the answer to this one - but why not?

Scoop

capncrunch

This argument reminds me of the ALV +15 will only affect international reserves. Beware of unintended consequences.

This is our time to improve work rules, not make them worse.

Viking busdvr

Unfortunately our "union" doesn't seem to agree with you...

notEnuf

The OE provision is designed to make trips available that would have provided a significant pay or time off benefit to the pilots assigned to trips LCAs held. Its a significant concession no matter the method used to remove this benefit. Going forward with the level of training churn that will happen, I am not convinced this has been costed properly and and if not it would be a real loss for our value.

Cogf16

Honest question. What percentage of reserve pilots get assigned ALV+15? I would bet it is a VERY SMALL% and it only happens in the summer months. What percentage of reserve pilots get assigned ALV? again, I bet very small. Inflammatory buzzword, but much ado about (mostly)nothing I would think.

pilotjockey

weve wasted a lot of time people and now the nmb has us by the cajones

im so over this garbage and i want my money and for the alpo-ites all of them, not 12, not 7, not strong, not weak, to quit screwing around and get us a contract to vote on

i think whoever this guy is gets it

A Deal? ? PUSHBACK / START

tunes

wow, no thanks.