Agreed. I just finished reading the qol comparison thread and came to the same conclusion that I already had. We are grossly underpaid compared to virtually every airline and our QOL is no better.
Yes transition conflict is an industry leading work rule however its benefits to us are nowhere near as valuable as they are to the company. Personally I would like to have a better min calendar day, night override, and international pay in exchange for transition. No matter what we need a new contract soon.

 

Welcome aboard!
Look for your welcome packet in the mail. Unfortunately they haven't been updated since 2010.

 

Yeah seriously. Seems like 5 yr JB F/O are making more than 95% of our CAs

 

What is the longevity of this contract, currently under negotiation? 4 years?

 

5, soon to be 8, lol

 

In other words, "Don't worry fellas. We were just playing around. We weren't really imminently close to giving up our transition conflict for those 'significant economic gains' the company was 'supposing.' You all didn't really believe that email we sent you a few months ago where we said we were so close to a TA that we were going to set up pilot conference calls to preview the deal. Come on guys. . . ."

Seriously, though: How about a coherent update/explanation directly from our union leaders. A lot of us who've been willing to give our representatives the benefit of the doubt are losing faith.

 

I definitely see where transition may need changing. It's much more than a monetary issue for company. They spend countless resources trying to cover the flying during monthly transitions (agree it presents a scheduling nightmare for them). Regardless, flights still need to go out. I'm all for providing some relief for the scheduling headaches, but it will not come for free, or at a loss at my expense. Everything is give and take. If I allow you to tweak my sked to make your staffing work, I should NOT be penalized by your reducing my guarantee by up to 10 hrs, and then having to try and claw my way back. Now I'm trying to shoehorn some crappy leftovers into a few days off that were created. Besides the obvious financial implications, this means I could very likely end up with fewer days off than before we started the game!

There are several angles from which to approach a solution. One of which (strictly speaking the $$ angle here) is to look back at objective historical data (say last 24 months) to ascertain the average hours per pilot of soft time transition conflict. Then either boost the hourly rates commensurate or add on a guaranteed "transition rider" for every pilot, every month. Let's assume the average pilot received a 10 hr transition conflict per month over the last 24 months. After we do the transition dosie doe, every pilot gets an additional 10 hrs/mo credit regardless of whether or not they have a transition conflict. Now that financial implications are mitigated, we can handle the business of adjusting my sked to meet company staffing demands.

I demand to at least be made whole (paid every hour that I fly or give up to allow you to adjust my sked), so this is similar to the "greater of block or actual" logic. But it takes away majority of incentive for a relative few pilots to try to work system, creating even more staffing headaches. And none of us are "losing" money. We're still paid greater of old-scheduled or new-scheduled (but not double), but we also receive compensation (example 10 hrs/mo) for allowing them flexibility to adjust our skeds over a few days to make everything work. And it's an easy number for their bean counters to budget. Give and take. We give them scheduling flexibility, and we take a guaranteed premium. And we lose the headaches of trying to play the monthly game--and screwing over many of our reserve brethren in the process!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

And for your first post I say..."WOW".

 

And we shouldn't have to play games to make a good salary. The base compensation (read guarantee + retirement) is the only thing all pilots have in common. After that, everything differs depending on what your qol goals are and/or which game you wish to play.

Guaranteed compensation absolutely must be the first objective we tackle, then address the other things. Everyone speaks of 4 days off around here. The contract actually states we'll have 5 consecutive days off in domicile "to the maximum extent possible," but no fewer than 4. See where sloppy, vague verbiage gets us? We SHOULD all be having 5 days off, not 4!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Alright, I'll throw this out there. I know most don't want to post their seniority, but to make my point, I have to. I've been here just shy of 18 months and have had 0, that's right ZERO, transition conflicts. I've had pretty sweet set ups only to not be able to hold the right lines in the following month to get a conflict. The only way it would be possible is to consistently bid reserve. I'm just under 50% in base so it's not like I'm junior.... I haven't "received 10 hours per month" as some would think. I'm voting on this contract based on FO rates amongst other things; I shouldn't have to upgrade to make good money, and another hiccup in the industry could halt our deliveries which will kill my path back to the left seat. What the company proposed, in its entirety, is complete garbage. If they're content on playing hard ball, I'd be content with going to arbitration if it means we'd get AA rates on dos (with their raises), even if we get their work rules. It's a game of chicken, who's gonna blink first. I'll be damned if it's me....