Contract 2023 - Page 6 - Airline Pilot Central Forums

#51

HacksawDuggan , 02-24-2023 08:14 PM

Line Holder

If we are giving up 125% over 82 what are we getting?
It’s very lucrative. I sense a lot of pilots undervalue it. It’s one part of our CBA pilots shouldn’t be afraid to defend yet the prevailing thought is it only benefits workaholics. But the truth is, it’s all soft time by it’s very nature. Vacation, delay into day off, premium add folder, jury duty, yes I’ve even had it apply when I’ve needed bereavement leave. If the company is short staffed and sets high line value they pay for it. Giving it up without major gains including profit sharing is a no vote from me.

#52

303flyboy , 02-24-2023 08:20 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Again. All for keeping it. As long as our 1 for 1 rates are DL321 or better

#53

fcoolaiddrinker , 02-24-2023 09:16 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by CantStayAway

This is from one of the original copies of our contract, though I don’t believe any wording here was changed via LOA…

”If the Reassignment following a cancellation or removal occurs outside of the Pilot’s Domicile, the Reassignment must be scheduled within the Footprint of the originally scheduled Sequence; however, if the Reassignment occurs during the last Duty Period of a Pilot’s Sequence or at a point in time when, for reasons beyond the control of the Company, the Company cannot reasonably arrange for a Pilot to replace the Reassigned Pilot and/or return the Reassigned Pilot to Domicile, he will be returned to Domicile as soon as practical, at which point the Pilot will be released subject to the limitations of Paragraph R.2., below, if applicable.”

“For reasons beyond the control of the company” is a phrase we want eliminated in this sentence. It can literally mean anything. “Sorry, we are short staffed. Not our fault, we don’t have enough applicants and attrition is too high.” “Sorry, a plane broke in Denver yesterday and it’s had a ripple effect throughout our network.”

Our reassignment language is not good. When Delta gets reassigned it’s at 1.5x the greater of the 2 (original or new schedule). That’s pretty industry standard. At a minimum we need to add the 1.5x to all reassignments to help discourage them.

For those who say we don’t get reassigned much right now, it’s mainly because the company still hasn’t released the app which will trigger the contact-ability provision in our contract, which is this…

”A Pilot is not obligated to be continuously available during a Duty Period, but will respond to notification attempts, if any, within fifteen (15) minutes after Block In, or completion of duties relating to that flight. For international operations, station personnel will advise the crew if there is a message and provide a means to contact Crew Scheduling. The Pilot is not required to respond to notification attempts again until thirty (30) minutes prior to departing on their next segment.”

The company has to get you back to domicile. If you remove that sentence what would that accomplish? Great I’m now released on the other side of the country and I just hosed myself out of at least 5 credit. 99% of the time the next leg gets you back to domicile in that scenario. They have two legs to make that happen. Most of the time it’s a dh back that I simply deviate from. You want to force the company to get you back to domicile. DL could just add flying to your schedule through acars. I agree with your 1.5.

#54

TurboFanMan , 02-24-2023 09:25 PM

Last To Know First To Go

Quote:

Originally Posted by spooldup

-Pay realistically somewhere between the DAL 321-321NEO rates. Especially since we have more pax in our 320s and are transitioning to receiving a ton of 321neos.
-LTD own occupation of AT LEAST 20 years. (id like to see to 65)
-401k contribution increased to 18%
-Min DAY guarantee. No more of this 3 day 11hr redeye stuff.
-Min days off for reserve and lineholders 13/14 with the ability for reserves to drop 2 days on "low credit months"
-Intl. per diem and a per diem increase
-Redeye/intl override
-16-18hr long call
-3hr short call (this would also incentivize CS to offer premium more due to not being able to instantly get a pilot somewhere)
-Drop to 0. Probably wont happen, but dropping below 65hrs any month would be nice, even if it is just to 40.
-Lower insurance costs
-FLICA paid for
-Medical paid for each year
-Only F9 pilots touch F9 metal
-IF CS is not going to be offering much premium and stuffing reserves into all open trips first, then I want to see ALL open time pick up increased to 125% baseline.
-If/when we get wifi onboard, pilots get free access.

oh yeah, and NO concessions. Not in this market. I dont think any of this is unrealistic to ask for.

Beards!!!!!!

#55

Hawk1G , 02-25-2023 03:08 AM

Line Holder

Quote:

Originally Posted by spooldup

Just out of curiosity as I’m not a Frontier guy…would a contract the likes of this perhaps threaten Frontier’s ULCC business model?

#56

160to4 , 02-25-2023 04:04 AM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by TurboFanMan

Beards!!!!!!

It took 6 pages! I second this notion

#57

CRJdriver2017 , 02-25-2023 04:34 AM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawk1G

Just out of curiosity as I’m not a Frontier guy…would a contract the likes of this perhaps threaten Frontier’s ULCC business model?

I do not think so…but if the model really was dependent on everyone being underpaid and getting less than others in terms of QOL then maybe that model shouldn’t exist.

#58

PositiveRate20 , 02-25-2023 04:36 AM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawk1G

Just out of curiosity as I’m not a Frontier guy…would a contract the likes of this perhaps threaten Frontier’s ULCC business model?

Pilot pay is a small part of our cost structure. And as United's Kirby said, it's a pass through cost. Maybe they have to raise ticket prices a couple bucks to offset it....but so is everyone else. ULCC is a model that is relative to its peers. If there are raises industry wide and those are pass through costs, then our costs to consumer will still be proportionately and significantly lower than others. Operating a single fleet type, operating a majority NEO fleet, offering "a la carte" tickets/services....this is what makes us a ULCC....not what we pay our pilots.

#59

Aero1900 , 02-25-2023 04:46 AM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawk1G

Just out of curiosity as I’m not a Frontier guy…would a contract the likes of this perhaps threaten Frontier’s ULCC business model?

Agreed with the post above my Positiverate.

The ULCC business model is all about undercutting the competition. If the legacies get a 30% pay raise, we can too.

Our management used to say they had to undercut the big guys by 40% of ticket fares to pry away business. I haven't heard them throw out a hungry l number like that in a long time but that's what they used to say. We definitely do that for sure

#60

CantStayAway , 02-25-2023 05:09 AM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by fcoolaiddrinker

Real world example…

Pairing:
Day 1
MCO-ATL 20+ hour layover in ATL
Day 2
ATL-LGA
LGA-MCO Release at 12:00pm in MCO

A plane in MIA that is supposed to operate MIA-ATL-SFO is hours delayed due to mx. Scheduling attempts a reassignment of the crew that lands in ATL from MCO.

Attempted reassignment…
Day 1
MCO-ATL
ATL-SFO layover SFO
Day 2
DH SFO-MCO release at 15:15 in MCO

I don’t believe this exact scenario would be legal today as there is a domicile in ATL, however this was before the ATL domicile. The above scenario happened to me. I was never notified of the change and I went home that day. Under the language of the contract that will be going into effect with the app, this would be a legal reassignment (per ALPA) because of the “reasons beyond the control of the company.”

In the above example the reassignment was outside of the footprint of the original pairing. That should not be allowed in my opinion. I understand that my plane can break down in an outstation and that’s not what I’m talking about. A reassignment to different flying should never fall outside of the footprint of the original pairing. We have that language and then negate it with, “for reasons beyond the control of the company.”