FlyingSlowly

And yet, it would still be too late. Let your reps know what you want NOW, not after the fact. TR does not act alone.

As for me, any limitation on the SAP that brings the minimum above 65 hrs is completely unacceptable. I am all for more efficient trips, but the last defense of a pilot's QOL at PSA is the contractual right to work as few as 65 hrs CREDIT per month. If we give the company PBS instead of line bidding we NEED three protections in the SAP:

1) Of course, RETAIN a minimum of 65 hours CREDIT
2) A straight "DROP" button added to the SAP
3) Bona fide IMMEDIATE processing during SAP, not this artificially slowed garbage that is currently operating.

These protections need to be in addition to any negotiated increases in pay and QOL for switching from line bidding to PBS. If the company is serious about continuing to attract people to PSA, the SAP has to be safeguarded. These protections are the only way I see that happening with a switch to PBS.

272922

Here's a WAG, based on what has been said publicly by TR and the tall one:

1. 65 hours may be increased a bit, but only if there's enough soft pay built in that the floor would still get about 18 days off.
2. How do you feel about drop caps on holidays? Seems like that's the only way you'll get a straight drop button.
3. How do you know it's artificial? Flica / Sabre aint exactly the bleeding edge of modern technology.

blackhawk88

I understand that the company needs us to work holidays. It's the career we chose, and the line of work we are in. That being said, I would accept locking awarded trips that touches MAJOR holidays (Christmas, New Years, Thanksgiving, and no more) if it means having PBS and SAP with a straight drop feature to a minimum of 65 hours. Walk your way up seniority to get those days off. In addition, holiday pay (e.g. 200% like they did last year @ 4 hrs min per day) to work those days.

I'm probably the minority here, but what do you all think?

Swakid8

As Junior as I am, I can live with that. That's fair, provided if we see some good rigs and increased compensation to take on PBS.

BeechPilot33

Compensation will go up anyway due to lack of crews from Major retirements. It’s a market thing. You shouldn’t need to give something up for it. If the company wants to hire pilots it has to increase compensation without asking for anything. See mainline raise that brought compensation to market rates.

TallFlyer

I obviously can't get too far in the weeds on the nuts and bolts here, but I will say that my numbered coworker is heading in the right direction.

TallFlyer

Except that some of our pilots have ignored the whole "It's a market thing" and have made certain suggestions on various online platforms to weaponize certain parts of our contract.

I'll leave it at that for now, and again emphasize "It's a market thing," and it's very much in our favor.

WhiteMorpheus

Am I wrong in thinking/hearing that PBS will get fed the same trips that crew planning uses to make the lines now? Without a different method of making the trips the inefficiency will continue.

TallFlyer

We've said it before publicly, but the company doesn't get PBS without ALPA volunteers having equal access to the pairing generator and creating solutions in parallel.

JayBee

Not trying to be a negative nancy... does the Union not already have some sort of oversight on this (at least that's how I understand it)?

I've heard it both ways and both from "official sources" that it will fix inefficient pairings and that it won't...

Go ahead and call me thick after reading what you wrote I'm still not sure if having "equal access" = better pairings/trips ? (though I do understand that the details are still being worked out...)

Thanks again for going above and beyond & being forthright with us. Very much appreciated.