Quote:
Just curious, what is the industry norm for system bids? Does any other airline have an annual system bid in August projecting vacancies for the entire following calendar year? I'm not aware of any that do. Perhaps there is a reason for that? I just see it, from my standpoint, as yet another contrarian thing with no good reasoning behind it and with no benefit to either the pilot group or the company.
I think you are missing an important point. As I said, this was literally a bidding strategy at my previous.Originally Posted by BeatNavy
I'm not hung up on anything, nor am I looking at it from a standpoint of what I want personally...but yeah, what I think is easier for the company is part of (well really the whole crux of) the discussion, as I see it as a lose-lose, hence why I am asking for an explanation on how an annual bid (and supplementals) helps the company and/or the pilot group vice quarterly (or other more frequent) bids. I get that the vac awards are predicated on the annual bid right before the vac bid. But I don't see your scenario of bidding FO vacation then upgrading being worse for staffing than having a big annual bid with random supp bids (also with up to year out effective dates) throwing a wrench into the previous annual bid. The way it is, people could game the system knowing a supp will most likely come out between now and next August, stay FO on this annual, get FO summer vacation, then throw CA in on the supplemental. I just don't see a lot of people making CA vs FO bid decisions based on one year of awarded vacation. But again maybe I'm missing something.Just curious, what is the industry norm for system bids? Does any other airline have an annual system bid in August projecting vacancies for the entire following calendar year? I'm not aware of any that do. Perhaps there is a reason for that? I just see it, from my standpoint, as yet another contrarian thing with no good reasoning behind it and with no benefit to either the pilot group or the company.
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.