Bluedriver

I think you are missing an important point. As I said, this was literally a bidding strategy at my previous.

Let's say the company wants to offer 8 weeks of vacation for captains for week 28. In October, 8 captains are awarded week 28. The peak vacation weeks in the peak periods are THE staffing choke point, and the company's staffing plan is predicated on staffing the absolute minimum (or less) required to cover the flying for the peak weeks and have 8 captains on vacation.

Now, the following Q1 system bid comes out and 4 of the FOs who have week 28 of Vaca from the previous Oct upgrade and have an effective date of June (before week 28). At my previous, the company would now have 12 captains on Vaca during week 28, but they only staffed for 8. Same for all the summer and holiday vacation periods.

This company, being more intent on minimum staffing than almost any other, won't tolerate that. So they will deal with the headaches of the annual bid system.

Ask the NC how the annual system bid came about. I will bet you $1000 cash I'm right.

Your point about an FO bidding summer Vaca and then upgrading on a supplemental isn't gaming the system, because he will be using his summer Vaca as an FO, which he was awarded, and which the company had planned and staffed for.

HighFlight

I agree with you that the annual bid will be a lose-lose scenario. Hell, neither the company nor the union can tell us how it’s going to work, and it’s right around the corner.

So what happens if I bid for a new aircraft & base, but it’s not available to me in August, but 5 months later, there is a need for that acft and base. Does my August bid stand? Can the company assign it to a NH (shouldn’t be able to, until everyone on property has a chance to get it). How will they fill it, without a supplemental bid?

Think about it like there will be no supplemental bids (far-fetched, I know, but bear with me a minute). Can the company predict who, what, and where they will need every pilot for the next year? I just cannot see them being able to do that. Attrition alone would prevent it, and we don’t really have much attrition here.

The concept of trying to forecast pilots for a year out is beyond the ability of JB, IMO. And probably ANY airline. Why not just have bids every two months? If a pilot who is bidding a new base comes over with a vacation date that conflicts with the current base dynamic of leaves assigned, then said pilot just has to adjust that vacation, or give up his bid. Many different ways to skin this cat, but I think less bid cycles will make things worse. More may not be much better, but better than one bid cycle. 6-12 bids a year would allow more flexibility and put people where they want to be (read: happier employees) sooner.

And to add to your examples above, what if Pilot Yeager bids for an aircraft swap into base XYZ. Base is available in August, but not acft. So pilot is denied the swap. But the following month, 3 pilots in that new acft and base quit, leaving holes. Does Pilot Yeager now get to fill one of those holes automatically? Or does (s)he have to wait until the next annual (11 months out) or supplemental bid (assuming one happens)?

Too many unknowns. And I’m not saying this annual bid WILL be worse for us, but I certainly do not see how it can be better for either JB or the group.

Bluedriver

I agree, less bids sucks for us. But you said if a pilot bids a new base and that Vaca isn't available, he needs to adjust or **lose** his vacation... That is specifically against the CBA language and THE EXACT reason we have this annual bid. I think some of you guys just aren't getting that simple fact. Keeping your vacation, to comply with the CBA, is THE reason for the annual bid. Will the company dork it up? Yep. But as I explained above, this is what they demanded in exchange for pilots keeping their awarded vacation.

And stop worrying about whether the company can plan a year in advance. They can and will use supplemental bids. They will put out a "minimal" annual bid, and supplement as needed throughout the year.

You do raise good points, as does Navy, but it is what it is!

Tom a Hawk

It is what it is because the vote was what it was. This is all driven by the forced vacation brought on by the BS notion that we needed industry leading vacation distribution. The PTO system as it was needed one thing and one thing only. Round bidding. The new system sucks, just wish people would have thought about it before they traded for this and an average hourly rate.

hilltopflyer

Our new vacation system wouldn’t be bad if they upped the allotted pto/sick time we do get. It’s terrible what we get. I’m sure this was a net zero for the company or maybe a gain.

Bluedriver

Dis A Gree.

Round bidding, yes. Much, much, much better distribution? Heck yes.

The old system didn't have NEAR enough summer vacations allotted.

There are lots of other things to debate about the two systems, allocation is not one of them.

WhistlePig

Umm, it’s not Round bidding when you bid all your weeks in one go before the next person in seniority gets to pick. The old system was, “I got mine, suck to be you”

IrishNJ

Round bidding is useless if there simply aren't enough summer/xmas vacation weeks. Although limiting everyone to two weeks per bid will make things a lot more equitable, if you don't have enough weeks to go around in the summer then things won't improve.

I think the new system will be a huge improvement.

IrishNJ

I agree.

The huge mistake we made was when in one of the surveys we were asked:

"would you like to keep 35 hours pay per vacation week?"

Most of us thought YES, of course!

The correct question was:

"Would you prefer: 2 weeks at 35 hours/week (=70 hours) OR 3 weeks at 23 hours per week (=69 hours)?"

The second option to me is MUCH better, I'd sacrifice one hour pay for another week of guaranteed vacation. I actually WANT MORE GUARANTEED TIME OFF.

(SURE like anyone I'd prefer 25 hours pay per week or whatever we can get more than 23 but for the sake of understanding the priorities of the pilot group the survey was flawed)

BlueJetDork

We lost almost 2000 peak period weeks with sophomoric analysis of a single question provided without any context.

The outcome was totally predictable since the defense with the result of this single simpleton question.

Oh well next time.

But 35 hours is industry leading. Except the group loses almost 2,000 peak period weeks. Which we did.