Myfingershurt

I’d be concerned about the 5% loss had the rest of the market not tanked right along with it.

Herkflyr

I can't imagine anyone taking the C16 updates seriously. I especially like their RCC rep clamoring for 100% of all Hawaii flying, and then a bunch of European flying from other bases as well.

Lifeisgood

As always feel free to show your math!

hockeypilot44

Council 44 update says retro is non-negotiable. It also says our expectations have not changed and inflation is making pilot group impatient. This is my summary.

sailingfun

Isn’t that kind of what their job is? Represent their pilots?

iaflyer

Well - if everyone LEC wants the flying that is in their base, and other bases's good flying too... how's that gonna work?

JamesBond

Get ready to move to the ATL.

Herkflyr

I suppose that was my point. I have no problem with LAX wanting all the Hawaii flying that departs from LAX. What I am reading from them is that they also think they should fly all the Hawaii flying that departs other bases...and they should also get European flying from east coast bases as often as they can cram it in (think, relief pilot pairings).

I actually don't have a big problem, when crew resources occasionally puts flying that "should" be "owned" by a base in another base's bid package. Think SLC guys flying ATL-FRA as part of a long SLC trip--or vice versa. It's a complex world out there, flying is always being amended, and as we are constantly reminded, "no base owns any city pair."

However I think it reasonable to assume that *most* of the time, ATL guys should fly ATL-Europe and ATL-S. America, just like DTW guys should fly DTW-Europe and DTW-S. America, and LAX guys should fly LAX-Europe and LAX-Hawaii. Occasional exceptions where "other bases are taking our flying" as deemed needed by Crew Resources--that's just the airline industry. What isn't cool is when one base's union RCC rep advocates for more of that, encouraging his LAX pilots to pester crew resources--always to his base's advantage of course. That's not cool at all.

gloopy

Right. Smaller bases aren't entitled to any "trip variety" for personal pilot edification outside of whatever flying that base is a base for, or temporary staffing decisions to smooth out other categories etc.

Similar thing used to go on in NYC for some NB categories. The "Jersey Mafia" would demand more EWR trips which the vast majority of the base hated. CS wold build them, then the 95% would complain and they would be reduced and the cycle would continue for a while. One rep even said "we hear you loud and clear you want more EWR trips" LOL! The 5% was a 100% vocal minority while the 95% was the silent majority. After a few cycles it got sorted out for a while and EWR trips were way scaled back, as they should be unless its to be a separate base.

notEnuf

On the 7ER I flew to every base both domestic and international. We were considered a "flex" fleet was the explanation. I think it's just the optimization of the airline and there's nothing we can do about it. Staffing, aircraft utilization, capacity management, and efficiency have made every fleet a "flex" fleet. I think the ship has sailed on base specific flying. And the new global scope will make it worse. No fleet or base will do the same flying as they chase revenue, that assumes they even comply with the new deal. Still waiting on language.