Fdxlag2

Could be. But the problem we have is with them giving out PNP like Hunter Biden with a fist full of fifty in a strip club. Canceling PNP or at least limiting how many times you can use the same hours costs the company nothing. Changing Sub will be a whole lot harder. But then they tell me all’s we have to do is vote no.

BLOB

I fully recognize that any change to our contract may have certain scenarios that may not be as advantageous for some folks in certain circumstances. However the goal should be to keep our contract as simple as possible.

Along that line of thinking I would suggest that we abandon both OTP and PNP in return for real time trip trading. PNP is just garbage needs to go away. OTP for the guy who gets pulled off of a trip and put in sub could be resolved in the following manner:

He would have the option to sit the sub window just as he does now. However he would also have the option to be put in hotel standby for the duration of the sub in case the individual does not live in domicile. Additionally he would get paid 110% to financially compensate for losing maybe a sweet trip. This allows somebody to guarantee that they keep the BLG that they were promised for that month plus a little extra.

However if the person chooses to decline SUB then you would just give them some sort of financial compensation. It could be a flat six hour credit hours for free or it could be for example if you lose 30 credit hours your next 30 credit hours that you make up will be at 150%. This person would be financially compensated for the inconvenience of being removed from the trip. However he would not have any special priority.

This aligns fairly well with other contractual provisions where the company revises trips or trips get extended. In those situations the affected pilots get paid extra money for the inconvenience. They don’t get special priority when bidding for other trips like you do with OTP.

I think the value added by having real time trip trading for all of the crew force outweighs any reduction in value for the limited number of individuals affected by substitution and this solution would still allow them to preserve their paycheck which is the important thing our union needs to be doing.

Adlerdriver

FYI, this option already exists and has since at least 2006. There’s some fine print as it currently is written:
It’s a request CRS can deny.
Trip needs to be longer than 72 hours TAFB.
A pilot who uses this option loses the ability to refuse a SUB assignment offered within his sub window.
Normal hotel standby 30 min callout applies (i.e. 1:30 prior to block-out notification).

I’ve used the option a few times as an ANC commuter when I was already there or mid-commute when I got put in SUB.

Adlerdriver

Why? Because if it did, we would have an illegal job action incorporated into our contract. A CBA can't dictate employee's choices based on whether the group is engaged in negotiations. Even if it was legal, do you really think that would pass muster with management and be put into a TA on which we could vote?
The bottom line is, those kind of choices are about personal responsibility and unity. Just because something is allowed in our CBA doesn't always mean it's the right thing to do in every situation.

Use of make-up is a personal choice that is difficult to put into context without close examination of a pilot's monthly bid, conflicts and past month's flying. I don't care to put that much effort into figuring out what someone else is doing. For me, it's a matter of knowing if I'm working overtime at straight pay. I can't stand the idea that I'm giving them extra work at a discount. Someone may look at my schedule one month and see a week of "extra" work I obtained via M/U. Unless they look back and find where I dropped a previous trip in another month or didn't make up a conflict, I may look like I'm working extra for straight pay but I know and that's all that really matters.
If someone wants to be the company's xxxx and fly carryover without protecting min days or just use makeup at straight time that's not replacing previously dropped work, that's their option. It's short-sighted and denies us the ability to leverage our time for 150% pay thanks to so many of our independent contractors who are willing to do the work of 1.5 pilots each month. Unless we're willing to restrict that option every month (not just when we're negotiating) and put a limit on monthly credit hours like many airlines do, we're stuck with it. I think many of us appreciate the scheduling flexibility being able to be paid for 125 CH one month and 30 another month brings. Giving that up to reign in our greedy problem children would be a tough sell, IMO.

FXLAX

If it’s in the contract, then by definition, it wouldn’t be illegal. Nothing prevents language like that to be in our contract other than being able to negotiate it. But if we believe we can never negotiate things we want in our contract, then we might as well not negotiate at all. We need to stop thinking we can’t negotiate things. That mentality needs to stop already. I’m already sick and tired of reading this kind of sentiment on here and I’ve pretty new.

Nothing in law prevents us from negotiating restrictions when section 6 negotiations. We can keep flexibility and then restrict during negotiations.

StarClipper

Good Luck, soon you’ll be labeled as a troll. Or you’ll be told you could always go work at another company because we have the best deal in the industry and you don’t know how good you have it. You’re supposed to be on your knees thankful for being here.

Adlerdriver

It seems like you need to educate yourself and be a little more familiar with the Railway Labor Act (RLA) under which you work. Specifically the "status quo" requirement that is imposed on both sides when section 6 notices are served to begin the process of formally altering the existing CBA. We, as a labor group, can't engage in coordinated behavior designed to monetarily injure the company in an effort to force them to capitulate. In the past, the type of coordinated behavior that has been identified to be in violation of the RLA during section 6 negotiations are things like sick outs, maintenance write-up campaigns and even the choice to fly over-time (if it's proven to be a union coordinated change to established behavior). A union sponsored restriction to a pilot's ability to make-up flying, potentially denying the company the ability to staff trips would be seen no differently.

Putting language into the contract that is triggered by entry into formal section 6 negotiations altering employee's behavior is a violation of "status quo". So yes, something "in law prevents us from negotiating restrictions when section 6 negotiations" begin. It's called the RLA.

FXLAX

Then educate me. Where does it say that we cannot negotiate language (theoretically) that would restrict “over time” flying during section 6 negotiations, or during furlough, or understaffing, etc?

I think you are confusing what status quo means. That simply means that what the standard practice is before section 6 cannot be changed during section 6. In other words, what’s already in the contract and the way it’s been interpreted and enforced, cannot be changed without it being renegotiated. So if something already exists in the contract, by definition, it’s the status quo.

Adlerdriver

As I said, it’s in the RLA. Clearly I’m not the one who is confused. I did educate you. I explained the problem with your proposal. Apparently you’re choosing to ignore that. Read the details of the RLA and get back to me. Until then this discussion is pointless.

sweetholyjesus

Alderdriver is right. To negotiate something that would put financial pressure on the company, and that would only be activated during negotiations, would be a violation of the "status quo" requirement of the RLA. I'm no lawyer but my guess is if you want to restrict overtime, you would have to negotiate to restrict it all the time, not just during section 6 negotiations.

Also, your interpretation of what "status quo" means in the RLA is at best incomplete.