Forgotmyhat

That’s a lot further back than I thought. I guess the next question is how did it compare as an overall benefit. In other words what was the overall value. 7 weeks at 2:00 a day is different than 5 weeks at 5:15. Any insight from someone who was around back then? I’m surprised this metric hasn’t been used more for comparison during the last couple of contract cycles.

FL370esq

​​​​​​THe overall value was yuuuuge back then because it pre-dated PBS so you got a pre-set value or the value of touching trips that dropped. With the right bid line award, you could turn a one week vacation into three. Ask a LUV pilot - they still have this because they haven't joined the PBS crowd...yet.

igotgummed

Im going to point out that our value of 5 weeks is equal to the old value of 6 weeks.

FangsF15

Value, yes. Time off, not so much (obviously). All else being equal, I’d rather have 6 weeks of vacation. Not that it matters until the next sec 6.

Gone Flying

for reserves you are correct, but I’d argue not so much for lineholders.

with PBS value seems to be just as important of a factor as the weeks itself. 16 days of vacation at 4:35 and 21 days of vacation at 3:30 both put about 73 hours of pre posted credit on your schedule, and in most months should get you in the LCW to get the whole month off.

our current system (for lineholders) gets us time off based on credit. 5 weeks at 4:35/day is more credit and less time PBS needs to put on your schedule than 6 weeks at the old vacation value (3:45/ day for first 2 weeks then 3:30/day for all other days)

Scoop

The value per day also went way down in BK. It wasn’t just 6 to 5 weeks. It was 6 to 5 weeks at reduced value for the always popular double kick to the nuts. We have made great strides in almost all positions of the PWA in the last few PWAs but a lot was simply reclaiming lost ground.

As a wise man once said - When life looks easy street there is trouble around the bend. We have it pretty good now - let’s hope it lasts.


Scoop

JamesBond

You will never change his mind. I've tried for years. Somehow pilots believe that the kind of airplane their seniority holds entitled them to more of the revenue pie.

The flaw in the argument should have been obvious when the 777s got parked and paycuts were handed out like Halloween candy

FangsF15

Admittedly, I bid reserve, but I still contend I’d rather have more days off at the same overall value. It can mean 1 more month with less flying, more times you can bridge 2 months with one week (and slide parts), and/or less disruption to overall days off with IVD usage.

To each their own though. But I’d be we can all agree getting the 6th week back should be on the docket for the next contract.

Gone Flying

I can agree to disagree on this. I appreciate your viewpoint and understand why the idea has merit, but to me I just think they don’t offset the downsides. But I can understand the benefits and see why some people might like it.

I guess this idea would come down to the details for me. I think in general it is bad for pilots due to several factors like I mentioned above and in my mind such a deal would have to come with enough of a win for us to offset those.

if the company just offered us 1 pay scale similar to UPS and the rate was the weighted average of all our current payscales and block hours I would think it is a bad deal. This rate would probably be similar to the ER rate and I think it would be bad for quite a few reasons. Conversely if we were offered the current top WB rate for all aircraft I think it would be a great deal.

Gone Flying

I can agree to all of this.

Meeting or exceeding UA vacation week accrual should be our goal IMO.