Vernon Demerest

I have no problem with field standby. To preserve our evening Europe banks at EWR/IAD/ORD or mid day Pacific banks at SFO or LAX or South America evening departures at IAH, it makes sense. A few shifts of airbus and 737 field standbys make sense as well. It should pay 5 hours towards monthly reserve guarantee and an agreed upon number of crews for each equipment type in each base per day should be set and agreed upon monthly when the system schedule committee meets with the company.

ReadOnly7

make it at least 3 hours of ADD PAY, and everything else you said.

Aldo Raine

Hard no-vote. Other airlines seem to manage their banks just fine without it.

Ottopilot

Field standby in EWR is short call for IAD & ORD. Quick deadhead to cover a trip. That’s based on personal experience. I’ll never sit reserve again. Field standby is a no vote for me.

hummingbear

As a RSV puke, I tend to agree. Generally I’m pretty comfortable with the idea that I’m here to keep the wheels on. If you’ve ever been in a boarding area when an hours-long crew delay is announced, the first thing out of every passenger’s mouth is “how do they not have pilots ready to go for a situation like this?” Fair question.

I like having a backup plan to keep the operation running to schedule. FSB, short call, & multiple reassignments all go with the territory. I just think we need to be compensated better for it. Guaranteed add pay for FSB? Credit toward guarantee? Or just set RSV guarantee to average line credit each month. Improve compensation & maintain utilization. I’d be happy with that, but maybe I’m in the minority.

FlyPurdue

I agree completely - pay me more to help keep the schedule (and lines) intact, but I understand its benefit to the operation. My friends at other airlines without FSB, are near daily reassigned, which does happen to me - but is far more rare than them. I of course understand though that people have different experiences and priorities.

Dave Fitzgerald

Ok everyone. This is all speculation till we see what is actually in the contract. To anyone who hasn't experienced a TA yet, it takes time. Patience grasshopper.

As for all those saying they have a hard no criteria, be careful, there maybe some interesting gems that could tempt you.

Then the reserve rules. Yes, I agree they are probably at the bottom of the industry. This was my #1 input on the survey that happened years ago--yes we had a survey, but it was a long time ago. Many of you have been hired since and have not seen one. As the airline goes more junior every day with more new hires, a good problem, the priorities of the NC and MEC should reflect the changes. hopefully. As we have all seen reserve is sometimes not a choice. Even with the rules we have, if there can be some accountability and limits put on the crew desk, with minimal changes, and a very small cost to the company, would yield large improvements in QOL on reserve.

So, no, we are not likely to see a complete overhaul to the reserve rules. I do expect some tweaks to improve QOL. But my crystal ball is a little murky here. Patience.

John Carr

Agree to disagree.

Contrary to our standard personality traits as pilots, it’s NOT out our job to keep the wheels on, it’s the company’s.

Commuted to reserve here, sat reserve as a non commuter here, our reserve rules suck.

Hedley

It is the company’s job to keep the wheels on by having assets in place to cover contingencies. Reserve pilots are one of those assets. Reserve is a necessity, and field standby is probably here to stay. That’s not to say that contractual language doesn’t need major improvements. Allow the company flexibility, but make unpopular options costly. Field standby serves a purpose, but language should be in place that encourages the company to minimize how it is used and to compensate pilots when it is.

John Carr

As stated, agree to disagree.