Where did all the Reserve lines go?
06-12-2018, 04:51 PM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
This is absolutely not true. You're ignoring the critical but yet to be defined known qualifier in the "80% of all known reserve days" referenced below.
Section 25.A.4
Unless waived by the SIG, at least 80% of all known reserve days, by crew position, shall be built into reserve lines published in the bid period package; however, all known R-24 blocks shall be built into reserve lines published in the bid period package. Remaining reserve days will be made available as reserve blocks, in the View/Add window, and Secondary Working Window (SWW).
All R-day blocks are not "created prior to the bid opening", nor is CRS restricted from creating blocks of R-days during the post-bid processing.
Section 25.A.4
Unless waived by the SIG, at least 80% of all known reserve days, by crew position, shall be built into reserve lines published in the bid period package; however, all known R-24 blocks shall be built into reserve lines published in the bid period package. Remaining reserve days will be made available as reserve blocks, in the View/Add window, and Secondary Working Window (SWW).
All R-day blocks are not "created prior to the bid opening", nor is CRS restricted from creating blocks of R-days during the post-bid processing.
And the MD11 58% is BS
But let’s take a closer look at 777FO.
Let’s use the way back machine and take a look at 2017.
June FO bidpack went 304-66-77
July 294-84-72
Aug 294-92-79
Why, that’s almost a 50% increase in VTO lines. Is our company devious or what, even way back then they were hiding R day blocks and screwing over the Junior FOs.
Or is the situation a bit more complex? Wonder if Vacation utilization historically increases in the July/August timeframe.
Nah, there can’t be any impact from that...why would anyone actually want to use their vacation in the summer?
06-12-2018, 04:52 PM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: Right for a long time
Posts: 298
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
I used MEM 11C numbers just now because they were convenient, but you did make the point that it was Feb vs Jul.
So, I looked at Jun 2018 777F (old contract secondary processing) versus Jul 2018 777F (new secondary process). Nothing "nuanced" about the results.
Same number of bodies both months - 520.
Same number of lines - 477
Secondary lines increase by 30% from 81 to 105
Reserve lines drop by 41% from 54 to 32.
I don't think I'd refer to the reaction to this as "histrionics". I think it's abject frustration on the part of many of us who saw this coming along with all the other negatives in this contract that have come to light.
We asked these questions online and in person. We were misled, outright lied to or the questions simply weren't answered because the NC knew if enough straight answers were provided, the TA probably wouldn't have passed.
How do you think the pilots who choose to live in their domicile and make a regular practice of bidding reserve would have voted if the NC had been straight with them? If they simply admitted - "This 80% of known R-days clause is going to reduce reserve lines by around half. At the same time, secondary lines are going to increase by about one-third. Many of you who currently bid reserve lines will not be able to hold them any longer and will be forced to use a secondary line to hopefully get reserve."
Most of the NC were former SIG. There's no way that this was a surprise to them. They knew the ramifications of this language and chose to hide it. Instead they advertised removal of involuntary conversions, all the new options to bid for R-day blocks and knock out entire blocks with conflicts while conveniently omitting the price of those improvements. Their job was to educate. Give us the facts, good and bad, and let us decide. They chose to become salesmen and sleazy, dishonest ones at that.
It's kind of amazing that you continue to be a CBA 2015 apologist in the face of the mounting evidence supporting how inferior and concessionary it actually is.
So, I looked at Jun 2018 777F (old contract secondary processing) versus Jul 2018 777F (new secondary process). Nothing "nuanced" about the results.
Same number of bodies both months - 520.
Same number of lines - 477
Secondary lines increase by 30% from 81 to 105
Reserve lines drop by 41% from 54 to 32.
I don't think I'd refer to the reaction to this as "histrionics". I think it's abject frustration on the part of many of us who saw this coming along with all the other negatives in this contract that have come to light.
We asked these questions online and in person. We were misled, outright lied to or the questions simply weren't answered because the NC knew if enough straight answers were provided, the TA probably wouldn't have passed.
How do you think the pilots who choose to live in their domicile and make a regular practice of bidding reserve would have voted if the NC had been straight with them? If they simply admitted - "This 80% of known R-days clause is going to reduce reserve lines by around half. At the same time, secondary lines are going to increase by about one-third. Many of you who currently bid reserve lines will not be able to hold them any longer and will be forced to use a secondary line to hopefully get reserve."
Most of the NC were former SIG. There's no way that this was a surprise to them. They knew the ramifications of this language and chose to hide it. Instead they advertised removal of involuntary conversions, all the new options to bid for R-day blocks and knock out entire blocks with conflicts while conveniently omitting the price of those improvements. Their job was to educate. Give us the facts, good and bad, and let us decide. They chose to become salesmen and sleazy, dishonest ones at that.
It's kind of amazing that you continue to be a CBA 2015 apologist in the face of the mounting evidence supporting how inferior and concessionary it actually is.
06-12-2018, 06:53 PM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by kronan
Really, you tell me I’m wrong about CRS having to use Blocks by quoting me CBA Language that says they have to use blocks?
Originally Posted by kronan
And CRS no longer gets to create R days during the VTO process, instead they are constrained to use the existing Blocks/patterns of R days created prior to the bid opening.
Originally Posted by kronan
And the MD11 58% is BS
Originally Posted by kronan
But let’s take a closer look at 777FO.
Let’s use the way back machine and take a look at 2017.
June FO bidpack went 304-66-77
July 294-84-72
Aug 294-92-79
Why, that’s almost a 50% increase in VTO lines. Is our company devious or what, even way back then they were hiding R day blocks and screwing over the Junior FOs.
Let’s use the way back machine and take a look at 2017.
June FO bidpack went 304-66-77
July 294-84-72
Aug 294-92-79
Why, that’s almost a 50% increase in VTO lines. Is our company devious or what, even way back then they were hiding R day blocks and screwing over the Junior FOs.
But, thanks for making my point for me. You'll note that your 2017 numbers which you apparently are using to show a gradual increase in secondary lines ALSO show a consistent number of reserve lines. There isn't a corresponding drop in reserve lines that MATCHES the corresponding increase in secondary lines like there is now.
Last summer we were still training a large number of new hire 777 pilots in anticipation of gaining additional air frames and adding hours to the bid pack. Adding secondary lines to the bid pack is an easy short term solution as new pilots hit the line and the additional block hours and aircraft are still absent. The 10% fluctuations in reserve/secondary lines you posted from last summer are nowhere near the same magnitude of change we're seeing now and the current situation is hardly the result of bid pack dynamics due to vacation.
06-13-2018, 05:38 AM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 616
Originally Posted by kronan
Really, you tell me I’m wrong about CRS having to use Blocks by quoting me CBA Language that says they have to use blocks?
And the MD11 58% is BS
But let’s take a closer look at 777FO.
Let’s use the way back machine and take a look at 2017.
June FO bidpack went 304-66-77
July 294-84-72
Aug 294-92-79
Why, that’s almost a 50% increase in VTO lines. Is our company devious or what, even way back then they were hiding R day blocks and screwing over the Junior FOs.
Or is the situation a bit more complex? Wonder if Vacation utilization historically increases in the July/August timeframe.
Nah, there can’t be any impact from that...why would anyone actually want to use their vacation in the summer?
And the MD11 58% is BS
But let’s take a closer look at 777FO.
Let’s use the way back machine and take a look at 2017.
June FO bidpack went 304-66-77
July 294-84-72
Aug 294-92-79
Why, that’s almost a 50% increase in VTO lines. Is our company devious or what, even way back then they were hiding R day blocks and screwing over the Junior FOs.
Or is the situation a bit more complex? Wonder if Vacation utilization historically increases in the July/August timeframe.
Nah, there can’t be any impact from that...why would anyone actually want to use their vacation in the summer?
06-15-2018, 06:53 PM
#65
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 93
Originally Posted by Cowbell
The July Airbus bid pack has 36 reserve lines for Capt. Previous months were June 55, May 56, April 48. I'm sure I missed the memo, but is there an explanation for this other than we suddenly have a lot more flying or lost a bunch of Captains? Standing by to be enlightened or ridiculed for my ignorance.
06-15-2018, 07:47 PM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 936
Originally Posted by harvick4
Can someone explain to me why a bunch of md11 fo reserve just showed up in the closed section of fxcal for July? Nobody is able to add right now, no new reserve showed up either. Just seemed very strange.
06-15-2018, 08:46 PM
#69
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 93
Originally Posted by Raptor
Are you using FxCal to look at them? A new test version moved them to the standby area of the listing.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
