We got an AIP!
01-30-2018 | 06:17 PM
#961
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
This is very misleading and trolling at best. The proposed rigs of 1:3.5 duty would make a 4 day (96 hours) pay a minimum of 27.4 hours. You're ludicrous example of a '4 day' paying 14 hours is actually 2 days and one hour (14 X 3.5=49). You're example would require a 2300 show on calendar day 1, day 2, a day 3 block in at 2359, and a duty off at 0029 day 4. Four calendars are touched but that's hardly a 4 day trip. That two day trip paying 14 hours isn't too bad and is better than the current DFW-PHX-DFW that pays 13.5 and doesn't return until 0530'ish.
It's really hard to have meaningful discussions with so many Chicken Little's running around.
It's really hard to have meaningful discussions with so many Chicken Little's running around.
I wonder if the cost of throwing away our current 22 hour layover language was calculated when the NC claimed to gain an additional xx million from the September offer
01-30-2018 | 06:31 PM
#962
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Mac, you realize that 13.5 3 day, DFW PHX DFW, would pay 10 hours with the new language? Along with many other 3 day trips we have. I wonder if, with the "increased efficiency," crew planning will build even more 10 hour 3 days.
I wonder if the cost of throwing away our current 22 hour layover language was calculated when the NC claimed to gain an additional xx million from the September offer
I wonder if the cost of throwing away our current 22 hour layover language was calculated when the NC claimed to gain an additional xx million from the September offer
01-31-2018 | 05:30 AM
#965
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,603
Likes: 0
3.5:1 is industry standard but calendar day average is also becoming standard not duty period average. We need both the 3.5:1 and calendar day average. Hard calendar day min would be even better but that’s not standard
01-31-2018 | 07:56 AM
#966
captain scarlet
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
From: Who needs to know?
However they are taking advantage of the over 22 hrs. layover for duty day rule and are building 4 day pairings w 21:50 hrs. layover that pay 14.5 hrs
01-31-2018 | 11:06 AM
#968
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
From: A320
Why in the world they caved on that I will never know. That in itself will be a huge QOL hit, not only because of the bad sleep schedule, but because it'll take you 6 calendar days to net 20 hours of pay. I hope you have a crash pad. You will see it a lot.
01-31-2018 | 11:21 AM
#969
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 33
We used to have a lot of LAS pairings that were 3 days worth 13:30. Redeye to the east coast, 22:30 layover, one leg back the next AM. Those went away because they figured out they could turn them into 18 hour 4 days with 17:50 block. More efficient for them. Now they will be worth 10 hours. (2 duty periods, just under 10 block) I'm sure they will show up again and you will see a lot of 22-23 hour layovers where you go to the hotel at 7 am and have to try to grab 2 nights sleep in 23 hours.
Why in the world they caved on that I will never know. That in itself will be a huge QOL hit, not only because of the bad sleep schedule, but because it'll take you 6 calendar days to net 20 hours of pay. I hope you have a crash pad. You will see it a lot.
Why in the world they caved on that I will never know. That in itself will be a huge QOL hit, not only because of the bad sleep schedule, but because it'll take you 6 calendar days to net 20 hours of pay. I hope you have a crash pad. You will see it a lot.
Vote what's best for you.
Do you think holding out, replacing the NC, extending negotiations for a year (the last recall of the NC (2008) added 2 years, I think??) could change what might or might not happen?
01-31-2018 | 11:56 AM
#970
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Ouch, that might just make LAS a VERY junior base. I wouldn't blame you for voting "no".
Vote what's best for you.
Do you think holding out, replacing the NC, extending negotiations for a year (the last recall of the NC (2008) added 2 years, I think??) could change what might or might not happen?
Vote what's best for you.
Do you think holding out, replacing the NC, extending negotiations for a year (the last recall of the NC (2008) added 2 years, I think??) could change what might or might not happen?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
