It’s all about the manpower!
 

For those of you new to the negotiation game, realize that most items the union negotiates are meant to be manpower positive. The 95 hour cap, while on initial look seems like a concession, is actually an item that is manpower positive for the overall pilot group. While it is financially advantageous to be able to double dip on the months one calls in sick, picking up a trip later in the month requires less reserves to staff a base. This new 95 hour cap should discourage picking up trips and drive the need for more pilots to cover that flying. Look at the big picture folks!

Looks like big picture is that a call out sick turns into a drop no pay and still an occurrence under the company sick monitoring program…

Increasing the number of people on reserve will significantly reduce PPU. Allowing the LCP’s to freeze their whole schedule in exchange for additional add pay will prevent buddy bidding with LCP’s and then double dipping when they have to buy your seat for training. The 95 hour sick cap will seldom be an issue since credit values that high will be rare. This contract will close some of the loopholes that make being a senior FO under the current book so lucrative. Some will stay WBFO for the schedule and type of flying, others will upgrade once they are reduced to flying their published line value.

Being a senior FO will be even more lucrative with the TA.

20-Q-18-c A Pilot who donates their line for use as a Consolidation Line will be paid the PTC of their awarded line. In addition, the Pilot will be paid 150% of the value of any Trips flown on Reserve as Add Pay. For example, a Pilot donates their awarded line with a PTC of eighty hours (80:00) and flies fifty hours (50:00) of credit as a Reserve. The Pilot will be paid 155:00 for the month, adding the PTC of eighty hours (80:00) and Add Pay of seventy-five hours (75:00). The Pilot will be paid for any unused short call assignments as provided in Section 3- C-1-b-(1)-(a) as Add Pay.

which the monitoring program doesn’t mean jack to us. It’s not in our contract and they can’t fire you for calling out sick no matter how many times you do it. There’s lots of things that makes us unable to fly which one of the reasons it will never be applied to pilots.

That clause can be used at the company’s discretion, kind of like TDY. It could potentially be a great deal if used, but not worth much if it isn’t. Same with buddy bidding with LCP’s. Current book allows 75% of the trips to be frozen, but they just don’t do it. Will paying add pay plus the automatic override lead LCP’s to request their whole schedule to be frozen, or will the company balk at committing to that expense? It will be interesting to see how this plays out, as well as how senior FO’s bid if current loopholes are closed off.

I don’t see the LCP freezing/not freezing being much different than today. They are still subject to the 75%, so unless someone is bidding on one person, it doesn’t seem to change much. The evaporation of PPU probably will have the bigger effect.

I don't foresee NB CA PPU evaporating, especially since that's the one seat in the company that's now becoming chronically undermanned. As long as growth continues.

Disclaimer: I've been wrong plenty of times in the past and may be wrong once again.

I’m curious how paying the $100+ LCP override the minute that a trip is frozen changes things. Perhaps a LCP could chime in, but my understanding is that they were getting upset that training was freezing trips early and then not assigning students, thus preventing them from trip trading and not getting the small $27 override so training stopped freezing trips so far out. The ability to get 5-6 hours of add pay plus locking in the substantially larger override could change their tune. I can see LCP’s aggressively chasing the add pay and override, and I can also see the company not wanting to commit to that expense as well. I’m curious as to how it plays out.

It’s a financial penalty to the company to prevent them from freezing an LCAs trip (preventing a trade) and then not assigning a student.