There is clearly some gamesmanship going on by people who take the time to actually read the Contract. Always has been, always will be.
Two possible solutions.
On the VTO side, make all of the hours deficiency general M\U.
Or, make it a bit more complex. If the Average BLG for a month is 70, make the shortage of hours to get to 70 PNP and the remainder of the conflicted hours general M\U

 

Or pay protect the pilot to begin with. Or make it so any revision to a trip with a Dh has to have a dh from the pilots home airport.

 

While this could possibly happen, it doesn’t happen often. In this case, PNP is reasonable (Sec 8.C.1.i). This isn’t the main source of PNP.

The abused section is 25.D.2.g. Change the last sentence and replace PNP with GMU. Fixed.

 

Should a pilot not get a priority level with makeup when the company takes or changes a trip as compared to the pilot who willfully gives up a trip? I dont see these as equal things.

 

We’ve wasted a lot of brain cells on this one. Kronan pointed out a very unusual situation that has occurred a few times. I think PNP is reasonable in that case, but again this exact situation is very rare. The wolf packers aren’t getting their PNP in the manner.

I’m still having a problem understanding your issue. If a trip cancels, you will be placed in Sub. You can chose OTP which pays more and has a higher priority than PNP. No one likes Sub, we’d obviously rather get paid outright. What exactly are you wanting?

 

As a newish hire, I don't understand how we gain anything by a flat increase in the A plan that we will have to renegotiate every single contract. There has to be a better way.

 

I often hear guys say we need a COLA on retirement like the military. Not to be a contrarian but....Nope. The government can print money and deficit spend like a pro. A for profit company can’t. The last thing you want is rising inflation forcing a COLA increase and big funding obligation for a retirement plan occurring when our business slows down and is out of cycle with the broader market. That is a quick way to an underfunded plan and increased risk of a bankruptcy. I like the idea of an automatically growing pension but it just puts it at higher risk.

 

either give it a cola or let the formula account for full income and or credit for all yrs of srvc not cap at 25.

 

We negotiate pay every contract, why not retirement? I’d take a Cola, but that would be a really tough get...

 

So explain to a new guy why he should negotiate an increase to the current FAE or years of service on the legacy plan when the older group failed for 20+ years to do anything about it. It sounds to me like a bunch of guys with less than 10 years left want the rest of the group to prop them up out the door when they failed to hold the line for 20+ years on a pension increase. Why is that on all the new guys to fix?

Not being snarky just asking honest questions. Why would we not want to negotiate something that is self growing and doesn't have to be negotiated for a big increase every contract to keep up with inflation. Why would we not want to look at something that sustains itself over time?

That same group on the way out is flying exceptionally high amounts of draft. Are they willing to do anything to help their cause or do they want everyone else to sacrifice for them? Im sorry but im not going to stand by while they fly every bit of draft they can get and then prop them up on the way out the door.

The current pension formula is obviously very expensive to increase from a liabilities standpoint. Why do we want a small bump every 20 years? Why not look at something that is more self stabilizing? To me we have a very clear divide. We have the group with less than 10 years left that want fixed what they did not stand up for the past 20 years.