Originally Posted by DeadStick

A brief treatise on PBS:

Fundamentally, it's about efficiency, right? We, as pilots, are largely against PBS because it will make us more productive. The company won't have to so often pay us to not work. "Work rules" largely means "ways we can trick/loophole the company out of wages." It's not efficient, and often favors those pilots in better position to take advantage of "the system." Because our per hour wages are so abysmally subpar, most of the pilot group relies on "work rules" to feed their family.

PBS takes advantage of modern scheduling technology and is fundamentally a more "healthy" way of operating an airline. Yes, it reduces staffing requirements.

The company is probably never going to be willing to accept the necessary compromise in wage increases to make PBS implementation palatable enough for the pilots to accept. However I, for one, would gladly accept PBS on condition of Alaska/Southwest hourly rates, and absolutely nothing less. At the end of the day I'd like my employer to be efficient and effectual, and I don't want my livelihood artificially propped up on my perpetual "working the system."

Originally Posted by ManFlex

I'll vote no on any contract that implements PBS. I also remind the FOs I fly with that PBS would alter the manning equation significantly here: less hiring and less upgrades.

Originally Posted by Qotsaautopilot

Staffing is the number one reason I was against pbs at my last airline and would be against it here. If you've ever been furloughed by one class or been the top 10% in the right seat waiting to upgrade for years or the bottom 10% sitting reserve for years and worked under PBS during these times you can thank pbs for your lot in life.

Everything else people hate about pbs can be adjusted with work rules. However, the more work rules you get the less it affects staffing which means the less it is appealing to the company. But, no matter how many work rules you get with pbs there is still a staffing advantage with pbs and I'm not going voluntarily vote to change a three year upgrade to seven or to make the bottom of our list remain the plugs even while we take new airplanes.

Originally Posted by Sailor

I was just a matter of time before we had newer pilots trying to justified and sell PBS propaganda, just like the GREAT majority its a BIG NO. No matter how efficient they can make it look.

Like manflex says, cannot trust management with so much power.

Originally Posted by putzin

Now if the company wants to double every rate, we can talk. I'll be happy as a 2nd year fo at $144hr. At that rate I can afford to call in sick without pay, because many times that's what it takes to make your life palatable with PBS.

Originally Posted by ManFlex

And that upgrade is more of a pay raise than the boost to FO rates coming in the next CBA. We shouldn't lose sight of that as well. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that the company would like to pay us significantly higher rates - paid for by monetizing our work rules.

Originally Posted by Qotsaautopilot

Do you have some crystal ball that shows what a ratified pay scale would look like? Your opinion is very defeatist.

I will say if our fo rates were comparable to market the upgrade would be less important to me because my upgrade comes with a commute for an indefinite period of time.

Originally Posted by ovrtake92

Does anyone know why Spirit wasnt included in the WSJ rankings? Frontier and Virgin where but not us
Oh and F PBS