Are these sits on turns? or on week long trips?

The optimizer is in full effect

 

I agree completely with this sentence.

I have never said our network was the SOLE reason our schedules have deterioriated, but rather that our network drives when flights operate and our network has many fewer "banks" than passenger airlines do. The network design contributes to longer sits than some people desire, especially on the 2DA side.

This thread has in recent days run the gamut from minimal days off to long sits to working more for the same money. All completely valid concerns ...but when discussing "why" something is, multiple things can be true at the same time, especially when discussing a complicated topic such as scheduling.

We had long sits in a sort with no day room doing "day flying" in the mid-late teens pre-COVID, but since we've got so much more domestic day flying now with Postal than even COVID peak, more people are now experiencing it. Looking at bid packages it generally isn't IMO, it just is occuring more because there's more of that flying available - and more flying being available gives the Solver more opportunites to schedule "efficiently" which it defines as maximum block time within contractual scheduled duty periods for as little total cost as possible. The Solver, in conjunction to a substantially grown air network since 2016, is the largest reason why schedules have deteriorated (especially with circadian flips). Understanding how our network drives our flying, how segment growth "feeds" the Solver, and how our network differs from passenger carriers is key to crafting proposals that address OUR specific top-line scheduling desires, especially wrt the Solver. Some of those proposals may be copypasta directly from passenger contracts, some might come from FDX, some may be modified from passenger or FDX to adapt to our needs, and some might be original.

The operation has evolved since Contract 2016 was ratified, we are going to have to evolve aspects of our contract to adapt (and in some aspects, future-proof) and I believe we have a team in place capable of doing exactly that.

 

yeah it’s a PM turn. Still pretty slick how it’s just 4 minutes short of a hotel and we get denied. And the facilities aren’t the best either. Oh well. Negotiation season.

 

Mine have been on week long day trips.

Boiler is correct, these sits are not new, the frequency is. Having a long sit is one thing when it’s sporadic. However, 2, 3, or 4+ in a trip, every trip becomes problematic. The existing contract language was predominantly aimed at overnight situations where adequate rest is crucial. Daytime sits have different needs which aren’t addressed and that is the problem.

 

I don’t necessarily mind the long day sits, it’s the conditions surrounding them: nothing to do, WiFi not always available (eg. sdf sleep rooms) or poor quality, can’t exercise (not at sort for the most part and layovers are too short - even then it’s not good for sleep to exercise right before bed), food options very limited and usually crap. Dayrooms solve all these problems.

Our network is the main reason our schedules suck. Airlines optimize, we get what network + optimizer gives us. Contract language forces the optimizer towards our preferences but it all starts with the network.

 

Sit pay very well could reduce sits….or in the land of UPS and optimizer, have you fly to ord and back during what was your sit in ewr.

 

if this new CBA doesn’t address QOL adaptations to the optimizer, it will fail to pass. We are working way more than our peers for the same pay.
if they think more money will make it pass, think again.

 

They have miscalculated before - like they did with OCV thinking we would take the money instead of the time off. I don't think they will do that again.

 

I disagree. Our network is definitely NOT the main reasons our schedules are garbage. Other than the postal contract, our network hasn’t changed much in a very long time. What has changed was the solver. We need new language to combat the solver. We’ll never change the network.

 

Just want to throw out that our ten year contract cycle has not helped matters. We have a long uphill battle to fight to get to where we need to be vs whittling away at the language every few years. The fact is, we threw away two golden opportunities to address scheduling language in the form of contract extensions. Now, before anyone gets their panties in a wad, those extensions were what they were, they passed by a large margin, and I a NOT proposing any kind of re-litigation. However, I hope we have learned something as a group here. UPS stands to gain extensively by prolonging contracts in any way they can. We gain very little by allowing that. Personally, I will NEVER AGAIN entertain a contract extension that denies us the opportunity to negotiate the non monetary aspects of our CBA. Fool me once…