![]() |
Originally Posted by ropestart
(Post 2611265)
What would be considered senior with PBS? 10, 20, 30%
fillllller |
Originally Posted by king10pin02
(Post 2611585)
5-10%
fillllller thankfully Navblue is not one of them |
Originally Posted by galleycafe
(Post 2611267)
In the end, we all fruit!
Plane Coffee 4 days OFF is useless and we lost negotiating capital, by keeping it. Management did not care, because they knew it would have no affect. As correctly noted above, PBS will force most middle to lower seniority bidders to WAIVE 4 days off to attain more desirable results. Surprised the NC did not realize that... Only very top seniority (10-15%) will get most requests. I truly hope those 4 days are important to the senior folks. |
I’m trying to follow this logic, the entire schedule is built now with 4 days off but with Pbs it will only be possible for the very senior to get this?
|
Not waiving 4 days off puts you at a disadvantage, you may get it at the price of other requests.
|
I understand that, but as it is now you have the 4 days off and you are stuck with the 6 day stretches or trips you don’t like, unless you are really senior to get what you want. I’m skeptical about Pbs but saying the 4 days off is useless is not really true.
|
Originally Posted by BillyBaroo
(Post 2610848)
Unfortunately the number one parameter for the optimizer (from what I was told) is to "limit soft time," and not to build efficient pairings. Apparently Crew Planning doesn't care about efficiency. Not sure how this will enter the mix with PBS, but if that soft time limit parameter remains at #1, how will the end result look? Will a majority of the trips default to the rigs, or will the rigs be such that the optimizer will need to be coded different? I don't know and look to the ones that have worked under a PBS system. All I do know is that if Crew Planning can save a $ over efficiency (sometimes even safety ala +1 redeye legs) then they will do that.
Looking at current trips most will pay 2 to 4 hours more with the 3.5/1 trip rig. The way I see it is either the pairings in pbs should pay more which means you can get to guarantee in fewer days or if they wanted to keep the same pay for pairings that we have now then I still am home more. I would think the 3.5:1 trip rig will have the most effect. It should make it possible to hit guarantee in 1 to 2 fewer days worked a month. Me personally all I want it to do my 72 hours and be done. Anything they try to build above that I’m dropping. |
Originally Posted by elmetal
(Post 2611142)
Right. The point I was making is if you do not INTENTIONALLY bid reserve in PBS, even the ****tiest PBS system CANNOT give you reserve if you fall within the lineholder threshold.
So when someone up there said "system won't build you a full line because of 4 days off, now you fall to reserve or relief" is just an inherently misunderstanding of PBS and it explains why so many here are afraid of it. |
Originally Posted by LloydBraun
(Post 2611862)
I guess I am surprised they wouldn’t want efficient trips. I would think efficiency would help them in the goal of fewer pilots. The more less efficient pairings they have the more pilots they need.
Looking at current trips most will pay 2 to 4 hours more with the 3.5/1 trip rig. The way I see it is either the pairings in pbs should pay more which means you can get to guarantee in fewer days or if they wanted to keep the same pay for pairings that we have now then I still am home more. I would think the 3.5:1 trip rig will have the most effect. It should make it possible to hit guarantee in 1 to 2 fewer days worked a month. Me personally all I want it to do my 72 hours and be done. Anything they try to build above that I’m dropping. |
Originally Posted by squawkoff
(Post 2612268)
I’m relatively new to Spirit. I had a 4 day trip that the last day was 1 leg back to domicile and I’m finished at 10am. There was a turn at 11 that would have added about 5 hours to my 4 day making it a a 26 hour 4 day. All legal with the FARs. In my mind I’m thinking 3 of these and I’ve got 75 hours with 18 days off. But I found out that our contract states that I must have 10 hours rest between pairings and or show times. I am not allowed to enhance my schedule. In my opinion the company could have easily made that a single pairing but for some reason don’t. I wish the language in the contract would have allowed us to pickup that extra time while forbidding the company from assigning it. Like the 29 in 7 company restriction where we can do 30 in 7. Maybe we can get that in the PBS LOA?
In reality, they should just be able to adjust your pairing and add it, So it's not 2 check-ins. It's 100% legal per FARs |
Originally Posted by elmetal
(Post 2612336)
They say they can't because it's 2 check instead in one day.
In reality, they should just be able to adjust your pairing and add it, So it's not 2 check-ins. It's 100% legal per FARs |
Originally Posted by tinman1
(Post 2612367)
Better to leave those in open time so hopefully someone on the x/y list gets a shot at 200%
If you’re on reserve would you rather come in and do a turn or do an overnight? If you’re a commuter I would guess overnight. Saves on a hotel/crash pad. |
Originally Posted by squawkoff
(Post 2612373)
“Hopefully” doesn’t work for me. My goal at Spirit is to maximize my pay while at the same time maximize my days off. If I work for only 12 days and net 75 hours then that’s 18 other days that they can “hopefully” dole out 200%. It all comes out in the wash. They have X amount of flying and Y amount of pilots. It’s the same if I maximize my days off. I’m just asking for the pairings to be more productive.
If you’re on reserve would you rather come in and do a turn or do an overnight? If you’re a commuter I would guess overnight. Saves on a hotel/crash pad. We have a Collective Bargaining Agreement here. Learn to maximize your bang for the buck within the constraints of the CBA. You’ll find ways to exploit the agreement to accomplish your stated goal without betraying your union brothers and sisters, and as a group we will enforce compliance from the company. |
FAR compliance is a must of course, but so is CBA compliance.
|
TWIRI according to the CBA within 3 hours they can do what they want, so adding a pairing to you pairing is CBA compliant. The 2 check-ins only refers to check in after a rest, no rest no check in.
Having said that, They can only do that a exhausting X/Y, so only do it for 200%. |
Originally Posted by squawkoff
(Post 2612373)
“Hopefully” doesn’t work for me. My goal at Spirit is to maximize my pay while at the same time maximize my days off. If I work for only 12 days and net 75 hours then that’s 18 other days that they can “hopefully” dole out 200%. It all comes out in the wash. They have X amount of flying and Y amount of pilots. It’s the same if I maximize my days off. I’m just asking for the pairings to be more productive.
If you’re on reserve would you rather come in and do a turn or do an overnight? If you’re a commuter I would guess overnight. Saves on a hotel/crash pad. |
Originally Posted by symbian simian
(Post 2612409)
Welcome, honestly I hope you keep your SWA app updated. In my time here I have averaged around 50 hours block, for 80 hours of pay, BUT average 15 days off. If you want 80 block 100 pay 18 day off, guess what...
|
Originally Posted by Total BS
(Post 2612384)
Welcome to Spirit!
We have a Collective Bargaining Agreement here. Learn to maximize your bang for the buck within the constraints of the CBA. You’ll find ways to exploit the agreement to accomplish your stated goal without betraying your union brothers and sisters, and as a group we will enforce compliance from the company. If you had your choice would you rather have a 4 day at 200% or a turn? As for me I’d rather have a 4 day at 200%. Right now I need 4, four day trips to get to 72 hours. If I could do 3 four day trips for the same credit then that would be an extra 4day in open time that would possibly go for 200%. I’ll quit beating my drum. We just think differently. I think we want the same conclusion and to accomplish the same goal with the CBA we just think differently and see this scenario through different lenses. I think my way would actually increase the chance of an X Y list call. |
We don’t think entirely different. I agree with you in favoring efficient trips. I don’t even want to drive to the airport, let alone hop on a commute to report for a 4 day worth 14-18 hours. That’s garbage! I prefer 3 days worth 21 hours or 4 days worth 28. Here’s the deal though, we just amended this CBA and it’s not changing for a while. It’s good to contemplate future improvements because the cycle of negotiations repeats itself. For now though our CBA rules over how the company deals with us and how we deal with them.
|
Originally Posted by squawkoff
(Post 2612438)
It would be nice if the CBA constrained the company while allowing us some flexibility. Again, just like the 29 in 7 company restraint allowing us 30 if we choose.
If you had your choice would you rather have a 4 day at 200% or a turn? As for me I’d rather have a 4 day at 200%. Right now I need 4, four day trips to get to 72 hours. If I could do 3 four day trips for the same credit then that would be an extra 4day in open time that would possibly go for 200%. I’ll quit beating my drum. We just think differently. I think we want the same conclusion and to accomplish the same goal with the CBA we just think differently and see this scenario through different lenses. I think my way would actually increase the chance of an X Y list call. To your earlier point, they do toy with building those 5-6hr turns to the back end of 4 day trips occasionally. The byproduct is less turn lines for those senior and used to getting turns. Also, more junior crews flying to unfamiliar challenging airports day 4 after a very early show and a sit as opposed to a well rested senior crew that does it everyday during bankers hours. Lastly, any delay taken on that first leg in the morning translated into legality issues for the crew and often pulling that last turn and scrambling to cover the last turn at 200%. To the company that’s another delay and soft time, both things they don’t want. I don’t watch the pairings as much these days so I don’t know if they still play with this much or if they decided to go one way or the other. It used to be one month many turn lines then poof the next month they pushed all that flying to still unproductive 4 days but the last day is 3 legs worth 8hrs. Those months everyone got unproductive 4 days instead of just some. |
Originally Posted by symbian simian
(Post 2612400)
TWIRI according to the CBA within 3 hours they can do what they want, so adding a pairing to you pairing is CBA compliant. The 2 check-ins only refers to check in after a rest, no rest no check in.
Having said that, They can only do that a exhausting X/Y, so only do it for 200%. The only thing they have relief on inside three hours is using a Y list over an available reserve or 25.G.2.b.5 which means they can go straight to junior assignment if they need. They absolutely cannot just tack stuff on to the end of your pairing. |
Careful what you ask for. I have had a trip with a turn tacked on at the end (way it was built). The turn resulted in minutes of extra pay compared to the rig without it.
|
Same here.
Rescheduled for 2 extra legs for 30mins of pay!!! |
Originally Posted by astral
(Post 2613049)
Same here.
Rescheduled for 2 extra legs for 30mins of pay!!! |
Originally Posted by Qotsaautopilot
(Post 2613102)
To be fair I don’t think you flew your entire pairing as scheduled with a turn just added on. That’s is not compliant
|
Originally Posted by Qotsaautopilot
(Post 2612716)
Incorrect. Second sentence of 25.I.1. More specifically addressed in 25.I.3
The only thing they have relief on inside three hours is using a Y list over an available reserve or 25.G.2.b.5 which means they can go straight to junior assignment if they need. They absolutely cannot just tack stuff on to the end of your pairing. I don’t know how restrictive the “timely” requirement is, do the have to call everyone or can they assume the pilots won’t be able to get there in time once you get to say one hour to show? 25 G 2 b 5 “In the event a pilot in subparagraphs 1−4 above cannot get into position to timely cover the open flying, the Company may select the junior available pilot in category physically closest to the location where the open flying occurs.” |
Originally Posted by squawkoff
(Post 2612427)
I don’t want 80 block for 100 pay. Never said that and never hinted at it.
|
Originally Posted by lowandslow
(Post 2613120)
To be contract compliant it would have to be built into the original trip (avoiding the 2 check-ins). This can alter the trip to be based on block vs. rig. Ex-4 day one leg/day = 4.5 x 4=18:00. Add a turn at the end and you end up w/ block 18:30.
|
Trying to wonder if these lines really could get worse under PBS. I just don’t see how they couldn’t get better with better rigs. These lines blow a$$. In DTW at least 12 lines with only 13 days off and 36 with only 14 days off. In a 31 day month. Out of I think 76 lines.
|
How can schedules not get better? Trip/duty rigs. 5hr average duty period. Trips will be worth more leading to more days off or higher credit. This period we are in now between signing of the new contract and PBS is as bad as it gets in my opinion. I look forward to PBS
|
Originally Posted by Tjamaica
(Post 2613256)
How can schedules not get better? Trip/duty rigs. 5hr average duty period. Trips will be worth more leading to more days off or higher credit. This period we are in now between signing of the new contract and PBS is as bad as it gets in my opinion. I look forward to PBS
|
Originally Posted by Alphafloor
(Post 2613450)
I am sure out lives will be much better under PBS. I am also pretty sure I was abducted and abused by aliens last night. At least under PBS I know who is fisting me.
|
Originally Posted by LloydBraun
(Post 2613586)
Majority of lines in DTW are 85hrs plus credit and most are well over 300hrs TAFB. Was reserve last summer. Is this normal for summer or are the doing something new here. Last month most lines TAFB was 230 to 260. I keep telling myself the better trip rig and duty period avg will improve this.
|
Trying to understand why such a change from last month. TAFB and avg credit for lines is way up. About 60 to 80 hrs more TAFB and 85% of the lines are above 83 hrs credit. 50% avg 88hrs.
|
Originally Posted by LloydBraun
(Post 2613795)
Trying to understand why such a change from last month. TAFB and avg credit for lines is way up. About 60 to 80 hrs more TAFB and 85% of the lines are above 83 hrs credit. 50% avg 88hrs.
|
Originally Posted by LloydBraun
(Post 2613795)
Trying to understand why such a change from last month. TAFB and avg credit for lines is way up. About 60 to 80 hrs more TAFB and 85% of the lines are above 83 hrs credit. 50% avg 88hrs.
|
Originally Posted by LloydBraun
(Post 2613586)
Majority of lines in DTW are 85hrs plus credit and most are well over 300hrs TAFB. Was reserve last summer. Is this normal for summer or are the doing something new here. Last month most lines TAFB was 230 to 260. I keep telling myself the better trip rig and duty period avg will improve this.
|
If I lived just a little closer I think I would. I’m right at 3 hrs to parking.
|
Originally Posted by elmetal
(Post 2613819)
making sure the last 12 months before PBS have high averages so they can justify PBS creating lines at 85 hours.......
We must limit max credit, or did we give that option away too?
Originally Posted by Qotsaautopilot
(Post 2614018)
Why not bid back to rsv
and NO drops under the "anticipated" PBS. Before the company trolls attack... I never checker boarded and do not live on base. Failure to stand up to bendo-bob and their tantrum demands on reserve drops, will be an embarrassing low of our union's history. Inexcusable negotiation failure, to not compromise to limiting drops from the outside in. Bending over as Alphafloor correctly mentioned above:
Originally Posted by Alphafloor
(Post 2613450)
under PBS I know who is fisting me.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:43 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands