Noworkallplay

As someone who has used the SLG over the past almost 6 years, I can say what we have now is a huge upgrade. Previously (2 years ago) it was like throwing crap against a wall to see what stuck. It was literally a VIPS type in sheet with no seniority or reasons report. Typing in a preference was almost useless. Those issues have all been fixed and more. Can it be more robust? I’m sure it can, but who wants more PBS? Much more important things to focus on in my opinion.

BrianH

Very astute. Was it like ASAP in contract '06. We would talk about it, but it was not mandated until contract '11. Did we have to negotiate ASAP twice? Will we learn from the past?

Noworkallplay

I disagree with you and Highflyer on this one. Have you even used the old vs new system? I listed a few of the improvements above that I have seen. I also looked through the implementation letter since you two brought it up and found numerous other gains such as credit delegation and vacation with a secondary line. Straw man theory maybe on both your parts? I have used both systems and what we have now is much improved.

BrianH

I have used all the secondary systems since 2002. I agree there are a few improvements, but it's still nothing to write home about. Further, it still does not protect seniority, so it is a non-starter for me.

And so others can gage your response, Where on the secondaries do you fall? Have you ever been unstacked? How did/would it make you feel? Is it even in the contract?

Wasn't PBS a non-starter pillar for contract 15? And yet here we are.

How many grievances are there and have there been since contract '15 dealing with the secondary line system?

Finally, Have you told your rep to have the slrwg enthusiastically endorse the current version as the permanent system?

FrankTheTank

Don’t try and engage with him. He wasn’t even here when we signed the contract. In his 5 years at FedEx, he knows it all.

HIFLYR

I use it also but not the point to the post!!! The new system was supposed to be built and current SLG was just supposed to be a tempo program until the new one was built.

HvypurplePylot

Explain to me a VTO/Secondary system that isn't preferential bidding. You guys make it sound like the SLG is PBS but the old system was not. What is the alternative we kick the pairings back to the sig after the view/add window?

How bout we focus on members of our own crew force who rather ask questions on JF than consult the CBA or the pocket calendar? How many posts a day start with, I'm too lazy...? You think ALPA is to blame? This group is lazy, out of touch, and 100% concerned about themselves. 5200 independent contractors and counting. How about the people that want the IPA extension contract but ***** about contract '15 being 6 years in duration. You're worried about contract '21, start with this crap first before worrying that your elected block reps aren't doing their jobs.

Noworkallplay

Well said on all points. Remember conversion lines for those around prior to 2015 CBA. Many of my relatives do....

Our problem isnt the CBA or the union its the me first attitude of many in our crew force. The subcontractor attitude. The “its someone else's job to do all the work” attitude. The laziness of many who wont be bothered to even read the contract or what was in prior contracts. I was not around for prior contracts but I went on the ALPA website and started reading. I found out about issues with the SLG that we fixed in contract 2015. I give credit when credit is due and many things got fixed in contract 2015. I also have numerous people to talk to who gave me information on stuff like conversion lines and inadequate pieces of the previous secondary line system. Its easy to throw stones from the sidelines while collecting all the draft you can stomach. I wont partake in that stone throwing type of behavior. I will give my input through the proper channels and support the group willing to step up and do the work (union volunteers).

Adlerdriver

Just a point of clarification so when you speak of the current secondary system, you do it with a bit more accuracy. There isn't a "previous secondary line system". It's EXACTLY the same system as it used to be. The ONLY thing that changed with CBA 2015 is the interface we use to input our preferences and a little bit more transparency with the results. The black box that actually crunches everyone's inputs and creates the lines is the same one that's been in use since before CBA 2006. We just have a snazzy new way to see what trips are available, pilot proof input options, the high/low limits and manipulating vaca footprints. Then we get a report that tells many of us why we didn't get what we asked for. It's better than it used to be, but it's definitely not a new secondary line system, just FYI.

DR K

This other bid idea has been covered before and is used at WN and probably others for their monthly secondary bid. All of the dropped trips from training, vacation, mil, monthly conflict, extra pairings etc are used to create a new batch of actual lines. These lines are published and bid on exactly as in the first monthly bid by the secondary lineholders. I’ve never heard a sufficient reason why this wouldn’t work here too.

Seniority is protected in that system and one can still bid on specific days off, layovers, pay etc. I THINK THE REASON WE WON’T GET IT HERE IS BECAUSE YOU CAN STILL CONFLICT WITH YOUR CURRENT MONTH’S LINE, and in our SLG you can’t BECAUSE ITS PBS. So we really do have pbs in my mind for the ever growing population of secondary line holders.

I know at WN there are contractual minimums in secondary line construction - trips and reserve periods are distributed evenly throughout the secondary lines unless there are not enough pairings, then reserve is added from the bottom lines upward as need for blg. Those guys are very happy with that system and it doesn’t cause any of the discontent that it does here.

The argument that our current system is better than the way the did it before is actually the lazy analysis. This is just like the lazy argument that since pilots work later in life we should have a pancake retirement system that facilitates working moar and longer, when in fact it is BECAUSE of the retirement system deficiencies that pilots decide to work moar and longer. With a well suited retirement system pilots would be retiring at the first possible date, which is just human behavior 101. Wouldn’t it be great if the union could provide data on retirement ages and life expectancies from our actual pilot group so we could understand the ramifications of working to 65 vs 60? But that is a different thread. DR K