Airline Pilot Central Forums - ASA PBS agreed to

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Regional (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/)

- - ASA PBS agreed to (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/43825-asa-pbs-agreed.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtechpilot (Post 680054)

My thought this spring was that PBS would not make sense for ASA unless they furloughed. I'm not sure if PBS saves 10-15% of active pilots or all pilots though. If you look at just active pilots and 10% the 136 on the street make a perfect fit. Regardless, unless we find true growth (not just finding flying for the 20 200s) I think our recall will be longer because of PBS.

If they try to furlough after PBS, the legal battle might be too costly. I'm skeptical that this will help us win new flying - it likely won't be voted on before UAL's Oct RFP and it may not be implemented by next spring if it does pass. Regardless, if the bullet-point highlights put out by the union are solid, I'm starting to lean toward favoring it. Guess we'll see!

see that is what bothers me still. I am leaning toward PBS but in the ASA Connect e-mail it talked about the no furlough clause will still be intact for all pilots on property. The wording of that BOTHERS me because are we considered on property? Totally mess up if they furloughed 136 of us to get us "off property" so we are left out of the no furlough clause. I remember back in Feb, right before we got the ax, ALPA MEC told me that part of their PBS deal is to ADD all the pilots, even furloughed guys, onto the no furlough clause. It would also be nice if ALPA forces ASAs hands on a no later than this date recall for us to ensure PBS doesn't sideline us for YEARS. (plural) Obviously I don't mean for ALPA to force ASA to recall us anytime soon, more like this time next year. That gives ASA 1.5yrs worth of attrition since the 1st group was canned. And it would be reasonable to add that it can only be enforced if ASA has at least an X amount of block hrs of flying. If next summers flying comes even a ear shot of this summers flying... I will be ****ED if there is no recall. It was bad enough for the 80 of us watched as you guys got jr manned and over stretched to pull off this summers flying.

The pbs no furlough clause does not include the guys currently on furlough. That is why they waited to negotiate pbs in my opinion.

Why not make growth or new flying a stipulation of PBS? Set up the TA, then set up the software to practice like the mec said, the company bids on new flying with the cost savings in it, then if we win the flying we flip the switch to pbs. Everyone benefits, including our furloughed brothers. The way it is now if we don't get the flying only the company benefits. Now what is the argument with that?

PBS is a concession.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 680154)

PBS is a concession.

So are regional airlines.

Well if the "PBS no furlough clause" only covers pilots that are active after Sept 1st, what's the differance between that and the original no furlough clause from the 2007 contract.

The only way they could improve the current no furlough clause would be to close up any possible loop holes that could allow them to furlough more under the current contract. The current one is already pretty cut and dry but I feel some improvement of some sort should be in order for the higher efficiency PBS would bring to make sure they can't send anymore to the street.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maxcackel (Post 680139)

Why not make growth or new flying a stipulation of PBS?

How do you do that if the mainline carriers are not giving out new flying?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justdoinmyjob (Post 680404)

How do you do that if the mainline carriers are not giving out new flying?

I agree, but I think others think Mesa is going under and we will get United flying if we give up PBS. The United rfp is suppose to be in October. I say PBS is a concession and a huge bargaining chip. Several people on these boards and in the crew room say we are doomed to shrink and the only way to survive is to get more flying and the only way to do this is to give the company pbs. I gave the solution that if new flying and growth is your reason for giving up pbs then make it a stipulation of it. Trust me, the company want's pbs, if it is voted down you will see a better offer for it. Pbs with out growth will result in capt down grades and add many more years to fo's upgrading and years for furloughs coming back.

Has anybody thought of how the new FAA work rules might affect the way we would write the contract for pbs. And should we wait until the rules come out?

We should get what we can get now with this purposed implementation, and then adjusts for the better when we can.