FXLAX

Well, the thing about negotiations is that we don’t have to agree to anything the company wants us to agree to.

But here is the thing about the company wanting things in negotiations, it’s called leverage for pilots. Will the company want to increase the block hour limit? Of course they will. The question is how much are they willing to pay for it?

Like someone else says, 117 means we start from a better position during negotiations.

As for lie flat seats, known R days, etc. being your excuse, that is still true without 117. Come May, we will be the same pilot group that negotiated those items. So that argument is just a red herring. If you really believe in that argument, you are essentially saying we should never ever negotiate again and keep current book in perpetuity because we may negotiate away other items and ratify them. It’s an argument made as an excuse.

Here is my caveat, nothing ever goes 100% the way we think. To me, that’s not an excuse to do nothing.

Noworkallplay

Wow did someone miss the entire point of the email? I don’t think it was to fight and debate each other. I don’t think it was to find a way to blame the union for company decisions. I think it was to explain that these trips won’t be in the lines and it’s up to you if you want to support them by flying them.

I bet the company is laughing at us and licking their chops going into negotiations. They (the company) makes the problem and we find a way to blame our union. Unbelievable. Good luck group. You are falling into the companies open net. Hook line and sinker.....

Adlerdriver

Ok. Like I said, I hope it works out the way you said. Don't need the lecture or words I didn't type added to my message. Of course we're going to negotiate and do our best to improve our CBA. Not really making an argument in the first place.
I was just pointing out that assuming we will save ourselves from unwanted change because we have to vote it in hasn't always been a valid expectation. Hopefully that will change. Also, it's not always that easy to utilize science based arguments to get what you want and then ignore the same science when your adversary decides to use it to pursue stuff you don't want.

HvypurplePylot

Exactly....

pinseeker

What contractual 7:35 block hour limit are you talking about? Are you saying that our contract doesn't let the company schedule any flights in excess of 7:35 block. Having a hard time reading your mind.

pinseeker

For those of you who arrived after the 2015 contract, I invite you to look at the disputed pairing process more closely. There are quite a few pilots that can be assigned those pairings, so they will get flown one way or another. Not suggesting that people pick them up, only saying that avoiding them doesn't keep them from getting flown.

Also, look at who has the final say in the dispute process. The game is rigged against us, and I believe that those pointing out the shortcomings in the contract are simply saying that we should have incorporated the soft parameters in the contract instead of some side deal. We continue to play checkers.

BlueMoon

Over 7:35 block requires a third pilot.

pinseeker

Yeah, I am aware of the requirement for an augmented crew, but;

First, that is not for every flight. You can still be scheduled for an 8 hour block in a duty period without a third pilot under our contract.

Second, how does that relate to the 9 hour 117 limit which it was compared against.

Third, that isn't a block hour limit, it is just a requirement for an augmented crew on some flights.

FXLAX

I was just trying to follow your logic. To say that we shouldn’t do X, Y, and Z because we can’t negotiate lay flat seats means that in all practical terms we shouldn’t attempt negotiating any work rule improvements, or in your example, unwanted change.

As for science, I’m for it. But then again, I’m for the parts of 117 that are not conducive to pilots, for various reasons. That’s because I try to be more idealistic, taking the good and the bad for the greater good. But maybe that’s just me and I can accept it if I’m in the minority. Either way, management will not be able to negotiate away FAA regulations they don’t like. I would invite them to put forward peer reviewed studies that go against decades of proven sleep science that was used to help craft 117.

FXLAX

Sorry, I was referring to unaugmented operations. Currently, 117 allows operations of two pilot flights to block up to 9 hours when show time is between 0500-1959 LBT. If we were to come under 117, our contract’s unaugmented block time limitation (or any other more restrictive limitation) would not go away.