No Land 3

Under AQP, your type is not official until completing IOE, as far as I know.
I think the regs need to be simplified, and better organized.

HercDriver130

What would you have them tell you??

NJAXRated

Do layover days count towards your 16 work days per month? Is this a 1/7? I've heard the term but I'm not clear on the meaning, thanks!

Locke

Yes, layover days are part of your 16. A 1/7 means you have to have 1 day off per 7 days worked. It's a day off while on the road so you can do laundry, hookers, or whatever you want. They are unpaid days other than per diem.

Oh, and a layover day can be used as a 1/7, but scheduling must tell you ahead of time that it is a 1/7.

WhaleWrangler

Look how the number of RSV lines have dropped. The company wanted nothing but RSV lines and built lines to contract minimum and hid flying for their favorite wh@res. There are not that many now because if you were on RSV everything got scratched by KH and her magic pencil. Now there is protection for being sick and getting a value for the time you are on call.

Personally I still bid for day's off I want and don't look at the schedule / routes, I don't care if I fly 1 hour or 81, I know I will be paid at least 64, it's all the same to me.

Reserve

I would like them to explain the email from AL in the last bid package. It says Asiana lines will have a guarantee of 70 hours, and the lines will be built after the awards. There is nothing in the contract that allows this, so a statement is in order. Are we getting bent over? Are they getting something in exchange for it? Are they fighting it? We have no idea. I believe 70 hours is extremely weak for Asiana lines if they sneak in layover days with no credit and no requirement to assign a status (R, or 1/7).

maxjet

I am at a loss to understand your complaint. Not being sarcastic when I ask this. The lines provide for an automatic bump of 6 hours in your minimum. That is more than the 64 hour lines that most of the other pilots get awarded. If you think that this is wrong, and you have the seniority then bid another line. I hope that you will school me as to what the actual problem with this line is, as I am just not understanding why someone would complain about 70 hours or more of credit, and staying in Korea, LA, or San Fran during the spring time.

Reserve

April I sat for 12 days and got 75.5 hours of credit in the 16 on days because of R's and the max 3 1/7's. (it was humorous how quickly they reassigned me to an R status when I replied "ack my 4th 1/7"). Asiana lines have good credit days of flying. By allowing them to only credit 70 hours and give layover days is a huge giveback in my opinion. They would likely credit more than 75 if getting R's and the max 3 1/7's. The only hiccup in my argument may be the timing of the flights. If they start one day and land the next late enough not to get a status that day, I haven't studied that. Regardless, it is a change from the contract, and we need clarification as to whether the union signed off on it or not. Silence is not appropriate.

70 is not enough, 75 hours credit and I wouldn't have an argument.

Just my opinion.

I do agree that Asiana layovers are much preferred over Delhi and Leipzig.

maxjet

Again I am lost. Are Asiana line built with over 70 hours of flying in them? If they are then that is the line guarantee. They cannot build a line that has 80 hours of flying on it and then say that is is only a 64 hour guarantee can they?

Reserve

Over 70 hours of flying? No.
Over 70 hours of credit? Yes, but not paid. If my concerns are founded, but we wouldn't know because the union has not communicated the intent with us.

What appears to being lost is the 4 hours per day that a status is required since they are not "hard lines" as defined by the contract.

We don't know for sure what the asiana lines have in them. They aren't in the bid package, built later, and presumably only emailed to those who are on the lines. You are correct, that if higher than 64 (seemingly 70 now since that was in the email) that would become the guarantee.

I happened to be on a double crew line last month and got an email from AL about our line being built for us because I was to be added as the 4th to the Asiana line holders. (I didn't end up doing it, they wanted me elsewhere) It had 54 hours of credit on 5 days of duty (4 flight days, 1 DH) so there are 11 days left. Subtract the 3 1/7's and you have 8 days that should have 4 hours credit = 32 hours. Add that to the 54 hard hours to get 86 hours. If they are allowed to call these published lines (they aren't published in the bid package as required per the contract) and assign layover days there is a loss of 16 hours pay here by "giving up" statuses for layovers on that line.

Full disclosure: The last day of flying on that particular line was the 13th. So if released you would loose 3 days at 4 hours. 86-12 is still greater than the 70 they want to pay us for it. You do get home early, which is great, but loose 12 hours pay. (Yes there would be travel, but I left it out since it is different for everyone)

So if we are allowing them to build lines after they are required to be in the bid package, why such a low value being associated to them? Why not a more equitable 75-80. Some months they win, some we win. With 70 they will win every time. Or, did we negotiate this for something elsewhere that is a win for us?