Why are some of you guys always willing to give up something. I guess as long as it benefits you it all good right? That’s why all we are able to negotiate is concessionary contracts.

 

That's current book. Nothing was given up?

 

Some of these guys are gonna do their best to force their negotiation discussion agenda into every thread. This thread had a civil discussion with questions, opinions and maybe some answers until that started.

 

Dude you need to take a deep breathe, log off your computer and drink a beer…

 

no agenda, no big leap, and the negotiation discussion started when someone posted their views. also the point wasn’t about one item and a failed TA, it was about mentality.

 

A point about a "mentality" that had nothing to do with Thrust Hold's comment but you assigned to him anyway because it furthered your agenda.

All he said in so many words was that he didn't care if he was off the per-diem clock for a few hours between hub-turn trips that start end end each day because that allows the flexibility of being able to trade them for better, easier trips. That's CURRENT BOOK, i.e. what we have right now. Someone saying they like something in our current contract isn't the problem you seem to think it is. BTW, for 3 hours between hub-turns without per-diem accruing, we're talking about $6.90 So, there's no "mentality" behind his comment other than basically saying, "I like what we have in this specific area and I wouldn't want to change it just to get an extra $7 of per-diem daily in exchange for losing the ability to trade my hub-turns for better ones." You don't agree? Fine. There's plenty of areas of the current CBA one pilot holds dear while another couldn't care less about.

This comment below you made is purely agenda driven and absolutely is a big leap.
Explain to us how TH's opinion about hub-turn trading and per-diem generates this comment from you.

 

He can't. He only says what Cutler, Comer and Turner tell him to say.

 

I want to take a moment to clarify a couple of things. The first is that I’m not trying to broach this topic for the current round of negotiations. I’m just trying to understand its place in our system historically. I do think it might make sense to address going forward in the next round.

Secondly, I think there has been a bit of false dichotomy regarding the costs and trade offs. When applied to our lines, a continuous TAFB system can be more than a “few shekels”. And it doesn’t apply to per diem alone.

If you go take a look at the April 2026 lines, there is a pure RDU day flying line on the 76. The week is made of front and back end DH’s. There is one week that doesn’t have a BEDH. Total TAFB currently is 322:31. Currently, it pays 94:57. If you didn’t break up the TAFB, it would be 385:42. That would credit 102.85. That’s 7.9 hours for the month. Not including per diem.

The line has 19 days on in a 35 day bid period. The current book comes out with an average daily credit of 5 hours. Compare that with the continuous TAFB pairings and the average credit goes to just over 5.35. That’s competitive with the industry which has an average daily guarantee credit of 5.25 hours.

Lastly, I think there’s a misconception of the tradeoffs. You don’t lose any flexibility regarding swapping schedules. Swapping out legs departing a base and returning to base has been going on in the industry with continuous TAFB pairings for pilots for more than a decade. Mentioned earlier, jetway trades are proffered on a trade board just like they are today. You just select which legs you want to swap or drop and the trade board does its thing. There is no trading shekels for flexibility.

As a matter of fact, it can enhance flexibility as some carriers can let you drop the last leg to base if you can find a pilot that will take the trip from an outstation back to base. That could make commuting to base much easier if you can operate in to work.

Again, just trying to have an honest discussion and see if there’s room for improvement.

 

Thank you for trying to re-direct the discussion back to your original point. I think you're talking about MEM 767 CA line 1127. So, you're saying that if each series of trips was treated as one continuous trip each week, the TAFB calculation would win out over daily block or MPDP and therefore increase the pay for the trip. The counter to the loss of trip trading flexibility we currently have with a line like that would be accomplished with "jetway trades" or some other version of that.

Be patient as I have some questions since I'm not familiar with how "jetway trades" work.
1. If I get someone to take my last leg back to domicile from my home airport so I can be "done" with my trip and go home, who gets paid for that leg?
2. If there is some other version of this option and I get other pilots to fly specific legs of my trip, does that require me to fly their legs?
3. If I don't have to fly their legs and can just give mine away, how does that affect my pay?

Some other issues to consider. Since each trip day is worth more, we're going to burn more vacation and sick hours when we knock out that week. We also have to knock out the whole week instead of individual trips. This happened in 2006 when we went from a 4:1 trip rig to 3.75:1. Our TAFB trip pay went up to 6.4 CH per day but our vacation/sick was still worth only 6 CH per day.

Regardless of how flexible the "jetway" becomes, there are still going to be a large number of pilots who won't benefit from giving away their last trip leg or getting someone else to swap flights with them. They still have an AM EWR hub-turn into the rising morning sun that they'd love to swap to that easy ATL or STL trip that's in OT. What do you say to them? Finding a willing participant to do some jetway kung fu is a different animal than simply hawking OT and grabbing a better trip that shows up.

Just to play devil's advocate, what motivation is there for the company to make this change? If the exact same flights are operated to the same cities using this current line in April, what benefit is there for the company to change the pay structure so the pilots on this line get about 8 CH more pay for the same work? Is there a potential mutual benefit that would help sell this?

Is there potential for new avenues of "creative scheduling" by the company? If most pilots are still on their current trip when they turn through their base instead of how it works now, does that leave them open to more trip revisions?

 

The pay difference you mention is only true for our current contract. With the changes in MPPDP that were agreed to according to the NC comms and the scheduling comm, that month of RDU hub turns would now pay 98:09 if that TA passes. Yes, that is short of the 102.85 that you came up with for a total TAFB, but it is an improvement.

As Adlerdriver said, there is also a lot of flexibility that you would be giving the company by not ending a trip when you returned to base. That month of flying would be 4 trips instead of what it is now. Let's say that they change that last day to an airbus, now you would be put into sub, and get to decide to go home early, or take whatever sub assignment they gave you. If that was all one trip, they could just do a schedule change and send you wherever they wanted.

Another situation that doesn't come up often, but does happen is the snow or other weather events in MEM. Let's say one of those happens in MEM one of those weeks after your deadhead to RDU. Now, if they cancel the flight to MEM for a few days, you can decline SUB for the trips that are affected while you are stuck in RDU and get overage. If it is all one trip, you get nothing extra.

As Adlerdriver pointed out, there is a great potential for unintended consequences in order to capture a few more hours of pay by making a series of smaller trips into one big trip. Given the company's recent history, is that something we should take a risk on?