Originally Posted by Whoopsmybad

Ok, stupid question about our antiquated systems, but where do you see your hotel information for CQ again? I can never remember or find it.

Originally Posted by crewdawg

Bottom of the page on your current month schedule in icrew (remarks section, of the month for your CQ).

Originally Posted by FangsF15

Before Covid, ARCOS batch sizes were not a thing for GS (or next-day WS). This resulted in many folks getting middle of the night calls for a GS which they had no chance of actually getting, because 25 people senior/in front of the line were going to take it. There was a lot of complaints over how many 'nuisance' calls pilots were getting for legitimate GS requests. During Covid, LOA 20-04 (the "furlough Prevention LOA", and also established PS commuting) "established contractual guardrails on ARCOS call-out parameters, and improve call-out and batch size requirements". It started with a matrix of which side of 8 hours to report the trip was, as well as time of day (2300-0430 base time), and gave a 15 minute window before ARCOS would move on to the next batch.

Critically, it also included a pay/no credit of 2:00 for every pilot in a batch where said "matrix" was violated. There was at least one violation that paid out 300 hours of pay. CSers pretty regularly screwed this up, and it quickly became known that you should put in a blanket GS - even if you never had any intention of flying a GS ever - because it would result in 2-10 hours per month of extra pay for "RCOS" violations, and pilots had to do nothing other than fill out the GS template. It was like free money every month.

While this had the effect of only calling you when you had some decent chance of getting the GS you were being called about, there was an unintended consequence. Because SO many pilots had submitted a GS request (for the free RCOS pay), GS submissions went through the roof, and it bogged down the GS process. Sometimes, it would take 10-15 hours for ARCOS to finally find a pilot who could/would accept the trip. This frustrated the company at a time when the post-COVID revenge travel started, and they were short staffed already, and it caused obvious delays in covering a trip, or outright cancellation. However, it also frustrated a lot of pilots because it took so long for ARCOS to finally call, that even if you knew from looking at Open Time the call was coming, they could no longer "get there from here". Somewhere along the line, I seem to remember there was a slight revision to the 'matrix' to expand the batch size slightly.

So, when there was willingness on both sides to make some adjustments, ALPA had a HUGE thing of value to trade. And it was something we had already negotiated a quid to get. I don't know how many RCOS hours were paid out by the company, but it had to be tens of millions of dollars worth. Maybe hundreds of millions.

Separately, Inverse Assignments (IA) were being grossly abused by the company by bypassing ARCOS, citing 23.M.7. In addition, some unscrupulous pilots were calling CS to 'volunteer' for an IA, which harmed thier fellow pilots. Unbelievably, very few times were the company paying the "affected pilot" properly. I've heard ALPA schedulers estimate it as less than 25% of the time - and that's the ones they know about. So, the company was covering the trip but not paying for it IAW 23.M.7, stealing from the pilot harmed. ALPA filed a formal grievance 22-14. Resolution of these often take years, and without any guarantee of success (regardless of how ironclad the case is).

The MEC chair unilaterally negotiated away ARCOS batch sizes in exchange for a 'promise' to not use 23.M.7 until within 8 hours of report (they had previously used it waaaaay in advance which was not in the spirit of 23.M.7, nor the letter). The company also 'committed' to create a formal log each time they used 23.M.7. The MEC voted not to overrule the MEC Chair, effectively accepting the grievance settlement. There is more to that part, but it's beyond the scope of the question.

As others have said, the rub is not that ARCOS batch sizes went away (though there was criticism that it wasn't 'modified' somehow instead of just trashed, but supposedly that's all the company would consider). The rub is that we really didn't get a really valuable quid in exchange. And when the company (predicably) didn't live up to thier 'promise', it caused some righteous indignation amongst the peasants in the trenches for giving batch sizes away almost for free.

So now, we are basically back to the way it was before batch sizes and RCOS pay was a thing, yet we negotiated away something of huge value and didn't really get much of anything in return. There is no point in submitting a GS unless you are actually willing to accpet it.

Originally Posted by ancman

3. Ignore the ladder completely, go straight to inverse assignment via 23.M.7, and assign the trip to the first pilot who calls. That required the company to pay TRIPLE the value of the trip.

Originally Posted by TallWeeds

I would be willing to bet less than 50% of these were caught. I don't think this is as big deal as everyone belives.

Originally Posted by myrkridia

Time was on our side on that front. By next year or sooner we should have the live API access which could allow for live auditing of such violations.

Originally Posted by myrkridia

Time was on our side on that front. By next year or sooner we should have the live API access which could allow for live auditing of such violations.

Originally Posted by TallWeeds

I would be willing to bet less than 50% of these were caught. I don't think this is as big deal as everyone belives.

Originally Posted by Viper25

Not sure your source but there’s no way we’re getting that in that timeframe.

Originally Posted by Viper25

Not sure your source but there’s no way we’re getting that in that timeframe.