Bucking Bar

That is what hopefully got fixed.

It is unfortunate that those who had the intent to follow seniority and work for a living pay the price to fix the problem. Everyone can see that there were better solutions available.
> require timely initiation of coverage - NO waiting for WS or Shift Change
> transparency > publish the coverage
> add a step to waive the proffer before use of 23 M. 7. (that would have solved the trip coverage problem definitively!)

It is possible the company will quickly tire of pilots selecting N to acknowledgment and use the now codified leeway to return to scheduling however they please, when and how as it suits them.

20Fathoms

Just one data point, but I am most definitely neither of those. I just see a QOL reduction in having to move to auto accept and not be able to preview rotations. I’m also a little irked we gave up a large piece of leverage and got so very little in return.

Gooner

I’m with you in this group and it will probably discourage me from being a GS participant as regularly. (Maybe the point) I value flexibility and my time off so not receiving calls for trips I can’t get or don’t want to do is a prohibitive. I loved previewing the choices.

I feel like ALPA is so afraid of arbitration, not necessarily unfounded, that it absolutely caved here. I kind of doubt the decision would have been this harsh, even if we “lost.”

crewdawg

Counter point, I've only flown 1 GS in months and I believe I've only ever received 1 payment from a 23.M.7 violation (I think) and the violation was called out by someone else. I had no idea where it came from or why I got it until I asked around. I don't have the time, or will, to sit and do forensics on assignments.

I don't really care about the batch sizes themselves. I only care that we really didnt get anything of substance. To me, them promising to only violate the spirit of 23.M.7 (by "their" interpretation) within 8 hours is just not a win. I think I've received more IA calls in the last two days, than I have in the last 2 years on this fleet. We negotiated for batch sizes for a good reason, then we just gave it up for a promise. Something as simple as a more user friendly system to input GS requests to make it to build/layer GS requests. Another win would have been an easy slider or something to turn on/off GS requests, rather than having to delete GS requests and input them again later. This would help both parties.

ancman

3. Those who understand the concept of leverage in an RLA negotiating environment.

dragon

This is the group I'm in. Not really affected by this but we've had reps branded as Moakies for doing far less than this.

We just signed the Damn PWA in March and we give away something like this without so much as a whimper. Lots of precedent. I see it as a lack of will on the MEC.

BlueSkies

Disagree.

How many pilots are really cutting side deals? Obviously one pilot is one too many but is it really that many? And don't get me wrong, I am strongly against any kind of 'deal-making' by pilots.

Again, how many pilots are really getting paid for 23.M.7 violations? I'll give you one data point: I'm still waiting for a payment by the Co. from a violation that is a year? running (honestly I've given up on it). I mean, if that's even remotely close to how it's going for other pilots then I can't imagine a lot of people are hanging their hopes on more 23.M.7 pay.

MY problem is the way ALPA settled this grievance. I also really can't understand how some of you are so blaise about the loss of batch sizes? Sorry I don't enjoy being woken up at 3am for a GS that reports at 15:00 as #20 with zero chance of getting it. 'Bro, just put your phone on silent, quiet hours, etc.' Alternatively, why do I have to possibly miss a GS I could have gotten just because they can't effectively manage callouts? But I guess it's a moo point now. I'll just have to try not to confuse Auto-Accept and Auto-Acknowledge.

Johnnychimpo

Question: isn’t every time someone is re-routed a 23.M.7 violation if they don’t run the steps through proper coverage for the open legs?

I just checked out those manual 23.M.7 and apparently the company has only used it 4 times since 27 June…anyone else find that a little hard to believe?

CBreezy

No. There is no restriction on reroutes if it was not placed in OT as long as it hasn't been uncovered for not than 14 hours

Trip7

I've been paid for several 4 days as the affected pilot and have problem with this settlement. Some folks will never be happy:

Same people Complain about record Greenslips

Same people post pics on the lake saying keep your Greenslip Delta

​​​​​Complain of Widespread use of M7

Now same people complain of batch sizes

Just take out your Greenslip preference and keep doing your Lake thing😂