Spirit of NKS
05-25-2013, 04:50 PM
#5791
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,857
Originally Posted by Sailor
Agreed with all, but why are you mad?, we haven't even starting to get a team ready to negotiate the next commandments. I think we should start gathering some data, opinion and show a strong commitment to a not better but leading contract.
Look, I really doubt anyone prior to June 2010 really wants pbs. I think we all hate the idea, at any cost. Loosing premium pay it's an example. Even a good number of us YES voters were upset about it. But you pick up and keep going.
We all want more efficiency, (higher line cdt) vs this 72-76 avrg cr9p we are seeing, and 5 days off. PBS isn't one of the things nor should even be part of our negotiations. After 5.5 years, I'm yet to hear a Spirit pilot wanting PBS.
And if a new hire, after contract 2010 even entertains the idea, it needs to be questioned why, then lead pipe (jk), NK style.
But getting mad about it isn't gonna help us at all. We all pull together, learn from the last negotiations and make it even better.
Getting a team together, asking our reps "how are we getting rdy for this next contract" and getting involve it's the most important thing. Two reasons, we want them (neg committee) to know that they have our support and with our participation there is little room for unwanted decisions or surprises.
All together. It's easy to seat on the sidelines, and wait for a great contract or bad and then point fingers (4 point back).
But I agree with you 100%, and Ram hat idea (I want a pineapple with Xmas lights on mine).
Cheers
Look, I really doubt anyone prior to June 2010 really wants pbs. I think we all hate the idea, at any cost. Loosing premium pay it's an example. Even a good number of us YES voters were upset about it. But you pick up and keep going.
We all want more efficiency, (higher line cdt) vs this 72-76 avrg cr9p we are seeing, and 5 days off. PBS isn't one of the things nor should even be part of our negotiations. After 5.5 years, I'm yet to hear a Spirit pilot wanting PBS.
And if a new hire, after contract 2010 even entertains the idea, it needs to be questioned why, then lead pipe (jk), NK style.
But getting mad about it isn't gonna help us at all. We all pull together, learn from the last negotiations and make it even better.
Getting a team together, asking our reps "how are we getting rdy for this next contract" and getting involve it's the most important thing. Two reasons, we want them (neg committee) to know that they have our support and with our participation there is little room for unwanted decisions or surprises.
All together. It's easy to seat on the sidelines, and wait for a great contract or bad and then point fingers (4 point back).
But I agree with you 100%, and Ram hat idea (I want a pineapple with Xmas lights on mine).
Cheers
...........Hal 2000
05-25-2013, 05:28 PM
#5792
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2011
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by Sailor
Agreed with all, but why are you mad?
meant "mad". I just liked the look of it more than 
. But, since we are talking about concessions at one of the most profitable airlines (by %, ahem), I'm less than pleased if its true.
Originally Posted by JoeyMeatballs
I don't understand why the average credit is so low?, it doesn't help the company at all, who, or what builds the lines?
It is in the company's interest (read, 'reduce costs') to build pairings with a few duty periods as possible, to have us average no less than 4.5 hours per duty period of flying, no less than 72 hours in a month, and no layovers over 22 hours.
While that's hard to do perfectly, our integration conflict language and '4 days off' (yes, I know its 5) requires us to carry more staffing per aircraft than most every other carrier. So, we have more pilots to do just a bit more flying per aircraft, compared to our competitors.
One solution is to have line pilots fly 90 hours a month, and reserves cover unknown contingencies. But that means that reserves get paid 72 hours a month to do, in the optomizer's eyes, nothing.
So, what's another solution? Reduce the flying the line guys do, and get the reserves to fly more. If they could, they'd have every pilot fly exactly 72 hours a month, no more, no less. Also, build trips so that you have layovers just short enough to not kick in a required extra duty period of pay (22 hours). So, the ideal trip is something like a trip that averages 4.5 hours of flying per duty period, and uses as few duty periods or 22+ hour layovers as possible. The amount of days you're away from base is not relevant, because there's no cost for the company to consider, since our 4.2 TAFB rig isn't strong enough. That's how we can end up with 4 day trips that only have 3 duty periods, but no 22 hour layovers, paying 13.5 hours credit (4.5 x 3). Yes, that often means you have to start day 1 at 00:01 (LAS trip) or during the day, and you'll have a red-eye flight somewhere in there (so you flip-flopped your body clock), and long layovers (but not 22 hours). There's no incentive to not do this, so, that's what you get.
Its all about $. If it doesn't cost the company to do it, they'll do it. Which is why I'm a fan of rigs, particularly Southwest's 5.5 min day and .61/hour duty rig. I don't want the rigs to kick in and to get tons of soft time.
That means the company is paying for labor its not getting, weakening the financials of the company. I have no objection to flying 90 hours a month (vacation and sick will keep me below 1000 for the year), I just want to incentivize the company to have me do this 90 hours of flying in 15 days, so I fly 6 hours a day (above the 5.5 required by my rig). Right now, the company can fly you 77 hours a month in 17 days. If we had a 5.5 min day, that would pay 93.5 hours of credit (which would incentivize the company to build more efficient trips, or give you more days off, to reduce this cost). But, we don't, so . . . surprise, 4.52 hours a day average, just above the 4.5/day that is the goal.Look at a bid packet: 30 days, 17 on, 13 off, 77 hours of credit. Coincidence, or optimized to reduce pilot costs?
05-25-2013, 05:29 PM
#5793
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 944
Originally Posted by JoeyMeatballs
I don't understand why the average credit is so low?, it doesn't help the company at all, who, or what builds the lines?
05-25-2013, 05:54 PM
#5795
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,857
Originally Posted by captscott26
It isn't the lines, it's the pairings. The pairings are built by a gee whiz optimizer, and the company refuses to make any adjustments to what the optimizer deems most efficient. The problem is, as far as line building is concerned, the computer kicks out mostly 4 day trips valued at 18-20 hours. Combine that with our 4 day off language, and you can see why the lines can't be built above 76-78 hours average.
But why isn't the 5 day off in the system to be consider as per the contract?,
wouldn't that force the system to a more efficient parings to stay above the set hrs for the lines?
...Or would that cause the lines to loose credit?
05-25-2013, 08:03 PM
#5796
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 758
Originally Posted by NedsKid
I didn't realize that meant "mad". I just liked the look of it more than . But, since we are talking about concessions at one of the most profitable airlines (by %, ahem), I'm less than pleased if its true.
The optimizer builds the lines, and its goal is to reduce costs. That does help the company.
It is in the company's interest (read, 'reduce costs') to build pairings with a few duty periods as possible, to have us average no less than 4.5 hours per duty period of flying, no less than 72 hours in a month, and no layovers over 22 hours.
While that's hard to do perfectly, our integration conflict language and '4 days off' (yes, I know its 5) requires us to carry more staffing per aircraft than most every other carrier. So, we have more pilots to do just a bit more flying per aircraft, compared to our competitors.
One solution is to have line pilots fly 90 hours a month, and reserves cover unknown contingencies. But that means that reserves get paid 72 hours a month to do, in the optomizer's eyes, nothing.
So, what's another solution? Reduce the flying the line guys do, and get the reserves to fly more. If they could, they'd have every pilot fly exactly 72 hours a month, no more, no less. Also, build trips so that you have layovers just short enough to not kick in a required extra duty period of pay (22 hours). So, the ideal trip is something like a trip that averages 4.5 hours of flying per duty period, and uses as few duty periods or 22+ hour layovers as possible. The amount of days you're away from base is not relevant, because there's no cost for the company to consider, since our 4.2 TAFB rig isn't strong enough. That's how we can end up with 4 day trips that only have 3 duty periods, but no 22 hour layovers, paying 13.5 hours credit (4.5 x 3). Yes, that often means you have to start day 1 at 00:01 (LAS trip) or during the day, and you'll have a red-eye flight somewhere in there (so you flip-flopped your body clock), and long layovers (but not 22 hours). There's no incentive to not do this, so, that's what you get.
Its all about $. If it doesn't cost the company to do it, they'll do it. Which is why I'm a fan of rigs, particularly Southwest's 5.5 min day and .61/hour duty rig. I don't want the rigs to kick in and to get tons of soft time. That means the company is paying for labor its not getting, weakening the financials of the company. I have no objection to flying 90 hours a month (vacation and sick will keep me below 1000 for the year), I just want to incentivize the company to have me do this 90 hours of flying in 15 days, so I fly 6 hours a day (above the 5.5 required by my rig). Right now, the company can fly you 77 hours a month in 17 days. If we had a 5.5 min day, that would pay 93.5 hours of credit (which would incentivize the company to build more efficient trips, or give you more days off, to reduce this cost). But, we don't, so . . . surprise, 4.52 hours a day average, just above the 4.5/day that is the goal.
Look at a bid packet: 30 days, 17 on, 13 off, 77 hours of credit. Coincidence, or optimized to reduce pilot costs?
meant "mad". I just liked the look of it more than . But, since we are talking about concessions at one of the most profitable airlines (by %, ahem), I'm less than pleased if its true.The optimizer builds the lines, and its goal is to reduce costs. That does help the company.
It is in the company's interest (read, 'reduce costs') to build pairings with a few duty periods as possible, to have us average no less than 4.5 hours per duty period of flying, no less than 72 hours in a month, and no layovers over 22 hours.
While that's hard to do perfectly, our integration conflict language and '4 days off' (yes, I know its 5) requires us to carry more staffing per aircraft than most every other carrier. So, we have more pilots to do just a bit more flying per aircraft, compared to our competitors.
One solution is to have line pilots fly 90 hours a month, and reserves cover unknown contingencies. But that means that reserves get paid 72 hours a month to do, in the optomizer's eyes, nothing.
So, what's another solution? Reduce the flying the line guys do, and get the reserves to fly more. If they could, they'd have every pilot fly exactly 72 hours a month, no more, no less. Also, build trips so that you have layovers just short enough to not kick in a required extra duty period of pay (22 hours). So, the ideal trip is something like a trip that averages 4.5 hours of flying per duty period, and uses as few duty periods or 22+ hour layovers as possible. The amount of days you're away from base is not relevant, because there's no cost for the company to consider, since our 4.2 TAFB rig isn't strong enough. That's how we can end up with 4 day trips that only have 3 duty periods, but no 22 hour layovers, paying 13.5 hours credit (4.5 x 3). Yes, that often means you have to start day 1 at 00:01 (LAS trip) or during the day, and you'll have a red-eye flight somewhere in there (so you flip-flopped your body clock), and long layovers (but not 22 hours). There's no incentive to not do this, so, that's what you get.
Its all about $. If it doesn't cost the company to do it, they'll do it. Which is why I'm a fan of rigs, particularly Southwest's 5.5 min day and .61/hour duty rig. I don't want the rigs to kick in and to get tons of soft time.
That means the company is paying for labor its not getting, weakening the financials of the company. I have no objection to flying 90 hours a month (vacation and sick will keep me below 1000 for the year), I just want to incentivize the company to have me do this 90 hours of flying in 15 days, so I fly 6 hours a day (above the 5.5 required by my rig). Right now, the company can fly you 77 hours a month in 17 days. If we had a 5.5 min day, that would pay 93.5 hours of credit (which would incentivize the company to build more efficient trips, or give you more days off, to reduce this cost). But, we don't, so . . . surprise, 4.52 hours a day average, just above the 4.5/day that is the goal.Look at a bid packet: 30 days, 17 on, 13 off, 77 hours of credit. Coincidence, or optimized to reduce pilot costs?
05-26-2013, 03:27 AM
#5797
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 944
Originally Posted by Sailor
But why isn't the 5 day off in the system to be consider as per the contract?,
wouldn't that force the system to a more efficient parings to stay above the set hrs for the lines?
...Or would that cause the lines to loose credit?
wouldn't that force the system to a more efficient parings to stay above the set hrs for the lines?
...Or would that cause the lines to loose credit?
Second, doing so would cause the average line value to drop, and the company certainly wouldn't look to remedy that by building higher credit pairings. The only way to fix this is a 5+ min day and better rig.
05-26-2013, 04:06 AM
#5798
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Switch, Lever & Light Specialist
Posts: 1,065
Originally Posted by captscott26
First, it's not 5 days off, it's 4. Don't kill the messenger... I didn't write the language nor was I involved in its interpretation years ago.
Second, doing so would cause the average line value to drop, and the company certainly wouldn't look to remedy that by building higher credit pairings. The only way to fix this is a 5+ min day and better rig.
Second, doing so would cause the average line value to drop, and the company certainly wouldn't look to remedy that by building higher credit pairings. The only way to fix this is a 5+ min day and better rig.
Originally Posted by SPA 2010 CBA
To the maximum extent possible, blocks of five consecutive days off in domicile. In lieu of the above, to the maximum extent possible, no less than four consecutive days off in domicile, except regular lines may contain blocks of less than four consecutive days off in domicile on the first three and last three days of the month. Exceptions to multiple day-off blocks may occur with prior consultation of the Scheduling Committee chairman.
05-26-2013, 04:14 AM
#5799
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 944
Originally Posted by Cruise
Honest question, so why is the 'blocks of 5 consecutive days off' in here if it's actually 4? I was under the impression it is supposed to be no less than 5; however, if for some reason that's not going to be possible, they are not permitted to go to no less than blocks of 4. What am I missing?
05-26-2013, 05:46 AM
#5800
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Switch, Lever & Light Specialist
Posts: 1,065
Originally Posted by captscott26
Read the language. "In Lieu of the above". The language was extremely poorly written, and gives the company the ability to go down to 4 days off, in lieu of 5 consecutive days.
So the language is basically states days off should be a minimum of 5; however, it can be no less than 4.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
