Actually if you go back through DTS, there’s quite a few past practice disputes won in the pilot group favor that don’t appear in the CBA.

 

This issue is like a hacker suing Microsoft when they patch a bug, claiming in the past they allowed unauthorized access.
You can't arbitrate unauthorized access and claim it must be allowed.
Like I said earlier, the first official opportunity to discuss this is during the limited reopener.
It does not seem to be very high priority for our pilots.

 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. There’s enough company material pushing the use of QT the last few years to make a case.

 

Point out to some, I can't find anything official.
Only things I can find are the exact opposite.

 

You’re not looking hard enough.

 

Probably harder than most.

 

Ask anyone hired within the last 12 months. The schoolhouse answer in our 10 minutes DECS class was “don’t worry about all of this, you’ll use QT anyway”. Maybe that doesn’t meet the threshold of status quo in your opinion, but that was being taught in the schoolhouse...and there were only a couple of instructors “teaching DECS”. Teaching in the schoolhouse, at least to a new hire, gives the impression of company approved

 

Status quo violations mean major disputes serious enough that the NMB would authorize a strike over it.
It is not my opinion. It is a fact.
There is also a Supreme Court case saying effectively that status quo does not apply to things that weren't there when the CBA was negotiated.
QT wasn't there when CBA was negotiated.
But this is just a BS line while you know, sucking up.

 

Here's one - how did the reserve pilots bid for reserve assignments/proffer for RAP before QT access was canceled and how do they do it now? Is HI31/AVRS menu tree explained or even mentioned anywhere in the training? I know my LCA showed me the basics of QT reserve functions and that was 2.5 yrs ago. Was QT an easier and less time consuming way to proffer? Sure was.
As you mentioned, p2p trading is nil or close to it. Did that leave a mark on pilots' QoL? I think it did, substantially so.
OT pickup, ATTOT, basic DECS entries - all of that saved time, and even if it was half hour a month (it was more), it's worth that subscription and then some.
I get the part where the union makes a point to distance itself from the issue to not be put in a position, where it has to spend negotiating capital on something that is 3rd party issues, but the impact on pilots' QOL is measurable and brushing it off as unimportant is wrong.
At the very least the company should make the sabre manuals accessible to those willing to read them. As it sits right now, it's a tribal knowledge transfer, where you seek out the elders for grains of sacred wisdoms of how to do this or look up that in DECS.
Anyway, it is a problem and it is not being solved.

 

Not sure how that related to the post you quoted. I don't think I ever said QT was not worth it. It really was, and MH could have charged 3-4 times more and people would've paid for it. I also have huge respect to MH and his team on how they developed something that wipes the floor of the apps built by the largest airline in the world. That is not my point. I am just trying to explain why it can't be bargained for at this time.
Feel free to call it BS or sucking up as some do. I'm just stating the facts.

The issues you are describing aren't even close to being status quo violations.

It is a problem, but for now, it can only be solved by QuickTrade, Envoy management and AAG.