[QUOTE=Airway;2506356][QUOTE=baseball;2506253]The issue for me is this.....SENIORITY.

PBS is redefining seniority and what it means. We are now in a situation whereby our union is helping the company water-down, abrogate, or marginalize our seniority.

Our seniority is Locked In when we do a vacancy bid. It's written in stone if we have a furlough right? It's cut and dry if we have a displacement bid. It's dead on balls accurate when you bid for vacation right?

So, why is it, that when we do something that's so important 12 times a year we simply throw the seniority list under the couch and simply use it as a "guide" to loosely define your seniority, and instead come up with terms like overall solution constraints and then mash that in with relative seniority. That's like virtual seniority. Is that the same as driving a virtual BMW, or am I still driving a Volkswagen?

Lock and load the seniority numbers for the monthly bid the same way as we do for our vacation bids and vacancy bids.

[QUOTE=baseball;2507080][QUOTE=Airway;2506356]I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. I absolutely agree with your first statement. But, how is the union responsible for PBS?

ALPA did not choose the system, the company did. I agree PBS should honor seniority. In it's current form it does not. The ALPA PBS guru's help us work within the current system, they are not responsible for it.

Tell your LEC, be part of the process, write and pass a resolution to make it a negotiating priority, I have. But ALPA help abrogate seniority? I don't see it in this case.

[QUOTE=Dave Fitzgerald;2507229][QUOTE=baseball;2507080]I think he’s talking about the G-Line which is contractual. Without a G line the last few remaining trips would just go into open time instead of forcing lines causing seniority to be abrogated due to “system needs”.

I’m all for getting rid of the G-line and letting PBS build the trips according to our seniority.

[QUOTE=rp2pilot;2506521][QUOTE=Airway;2506356]Next time you see Martin or Stivala you can thank **** When they initially sold this thing, at NO time was a G line EVER mentioned or discussed. NEVER. Their favorite saying was “if you can hold it, you can have it.” The implication was exactly as you described, when it ran out of trips everyone else was on reserve. I understood it to mean some lines would be a mix of trips and reserve.

Out of nowhere the G line concept shows up which completely abrogates seniority in order to meet built in constraints that are solely at the whim of the company.

Those two guys did more damage to this pilot group than Smisek ever did.

[QUOTE=Airway;2506563][QUOTE=Chuck D;2506550]The G line has nothing to do with the concept of global solution constraints. It is simply just another variable that must be satisfied as a part of the final solution. No different than he line production floor/cap. The final solution must have x pilots get a line.....period.

LUAL Adopt/Kronos didn’t have a G line but had the same Global issues that will lead to some abrogation of seniority in order to stay within the company specified solution constraints while building a legal schedule for all.

At least the G line tells those above it they will have a line if they want one. Those below it should assume they will be on reserve. Pretty simple.

Lee

[QUOTE=JoePatroni;2507268]Don't forget the slightly less famous, Third Amigo, Rick Muir

[QUOTE=Dave Fitzgerald;2507229][QUOTE=baseball;2507080]That is backward, at least as far as LCAL is concerned. We had no PBS prior to ALPA. In fact we fought it for years. The company, along with a few pbs diehards from EWR, pushed it every couple years since around '89.

It was not until the first ALPA contract that we got PBS (and lost funding of our "A" plan). During the road shows and various communications from the MEC, LEC and negotiating committee reps, they were all gushing about how great PBS would be.

The company offered it, and our MEC swallowed it like hungry bass swallows a minnow. There were alternatives, including staying with pre-built lines, but the prevailing mantra was, the other ALPA carriers are going with a preferential system (and dumping their DB plans), so we should too.

[QUOTE=LeeFXDWG;2507273][QUOTE=Airway;2506563]The G line is THE reason for global constraints, or whatever it’s called these days- it IS the final solution. It tells PBS how many lines it WILL make, seniority be damned. The line credit ranges are changed to accommodate the G line.

[QUOTE=Dave Fitzgerald;2507229][QUOTE=baseball;2507080]Simple: when ALPA negotiated the post merger contract, PBS was in it. The same PBS that ALPA agreed to under the Legacy CAL contract, known as Piece of Shtt 02. Alpa had plenty of opportunities to learn the good, the bad, and the ugly of PBS. Instead of learning honest lessons about the failures of PBS, the PBS committee, fully staffed with Pro-PBS system computer people put PBS ahead of the pilot group. They saw only the company's point of view, and bought into it hook, line and sinker. Management continually talked it up, even when failures occurred, and got ALPA to play along. ALPA pilot reps were staffed into the PBS committee to essentially facilitate it.

PBS was sold to CAL pilots as a "concession." There was a cash value associated with its implementation. The company wanted concessions from pilots. Some of those concessions came from work rules, some of those work rules (most of them), are buried inside the PBS rule-sets, some in other places. Dollar amount assigned. Then, another set of dollars associated with implementation of PBS, and elimination of the 10 percent reserve compliment on each fleet. Result: fewer pilots, roughly 400 pilot jobs lost post PBS. ALPA simply agreed to it in POS 02, and then in a post merger contract, and then in a contract extension.

I would love for ALPA to see PBS as the glass half empty instead of it as half full for its pilots. Take a more protective approach with honoring the seniority of our pilots. My question is this: What can, and should be ALPA's role in protecting and preserving our seniority when it counts most?

For me, my quality of life is a direct product of the scheduling process. This process comes from bidding. If the scheduling system or process produces results that water down the seniority, then the system is broken.

For pilots, we should stop calling "preferential" bidding system. My preference is for it to honor seniority. Instead we should call it butts in seats, because really all it is is a known conflict deconfliction system. PBS just recognizes and identifies all known staffing conflicts and eliminates them. Then and only then does it crunch. However, it will never work they way they want? Why? unscheduled or unknown sick leave, pop up training, missed training events, and late notice military leave. No way to plan for everything, so PBS can't be run too lean and mean.

I think people meant well when they implemented PBS, but it would have had a different outcome and thought process if the committee were staffed by over 60 senior Captains, instead of a bunch of under 30 computer programming first officers who think they can solve every problem ever devised with cobalt and fortran. Not all problems deserve a solution, and not all pilots need pilots solving them. We gave in on the concessions to easy, too early, and too often, and ultimately we never got a fair shake on how much PBS really did save the company. Not enough dollars given credit for in the concessions.

Also, the MEC at the time was way too lenient with management and totally non-confrontational. Even when the company was throwing softballs begging us to hit one over, we simply laid down a bunt and played it safe.

ALPA didn't have to sign that contract.....

[QUOTE=Dave Fitzgerald;2507229][QUOTE=baseball;2507080]Maybe consider this..... Is ALPA aware of instances whereby PBS has not honored seniority? The answer is yes. Ok a dispute gets filed, the results, overall solution constraints is the answer. When ALPA gets that answer and does not jump on the hand grenade then the dues paying member who got his seniority number changed just got rolled. Is that not an abrogation of seniority?

There is not successful outcome or result for the pilot who gets these types of answers or responses after PBS runs. If the pilot got a reduced, or unfavorable bid result he should have had, then the system, which ALPA monitors, and participates in via a joint committee is victimizing a dues paying member in good standing.

So, are we paying union dues to get our seniority watered down? PBS was put out in section 25 of the old CAL contract, 02. That section was blank when it was signed by the MEC and put to the pilot group for a vote. It was blank during the vote, and it was blank a month after the vote. It said "to be inserted at a later date." Then, the later date came, and the MEC alone voted on it and put it into place. The pilots never got to see the rules or what PBS was until after the MEC's vote. Why not another vote on PBS? You can't do something this big, without the pilots seeing it and actually voting on it. And, yes, this was an ALPA contract.