Search

Notices

23.M.7 Updated

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-27-2023, 07:35 AM
  #231  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,518
Default

Originally Posted by tennisguru
The other side of the coin is, when we negotiated the batch sizes as a part of one of the Covid LOA's, what else could we have gotten had we not fought for batch sizes? Permanent PS commuting? Other improvements? Who knows, but whatever "price" we paid to secure batch sizes in the LOA was lost as well.
That's a fair critique that people don't think we got enough but I also don't think that's where most of the heartburn comes from. I don't think batches should have gone to unlimited. I don't know what else was on the table during 20-04 LOA negotiating. This was the LOA that resulted in job protections for new hire FOs and gave the company additional flexibility on offering blank lines or unpaid time off. One could surmise that they squandered their position by asking for things like that and never ending up using it.
CBreezy is offline  
Old 07-27-2023, 10:18 AM
  #232  
Moderator
 
crewdawg's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,807
Default

Originally Posted by Meme In Command
It seems to me like most of the heartburn with the decision is because we gave it away without negotiating something for it
Yes, generally when the union gives something up, I'd expect they get something meaningful in return. I especially want something in return when we're giving up something we negotiated to get in the first place. I just don't veiw a promise from the company to limit 23m7 (we've already debated whether their application is even legit, so I wont touch that here), a "good deal." I've already seen them try to negotiate a side deal with an FO which closely mirrors a post above, so we clearly can't trust them to do the right thing.
crewdawg is offline  
Old 07-27-2023, 01:52 PM
  #233  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,995
Default

Originally Posted by crewdawg
Yes, generally when the union gives something up, I'd expect they get something meaningful in return. I especially want something in return when we're giving up something we negotiated to get in the first place. I just don't veiw a promise from the company to limit 23m7 (we've already debated whether their application is even legit, so I wont touch that here), a "good deal." I've already seen them try to negotiate a side deal with an FO which closely mirrors a post above, so we clearly can't trust them to do the right thing.
We got something…it’s just not something that was important to everyone. Plenty of commuters were rightfully ticked off that GS coverage moved so slowly and then transitioned into IAs that they couldn’t get the premium flying they were due nor track if the right person (or anyone) was paid appropriately. Even if you don’t commute, more foresight on green slip assignments can now make some rotations flyable that previously were not. That is what I see as the most valuable end state for the winners here (yes there are losers), with tracking and transparency being less meaningful. Those who previously scored IAs they never could have held as timely green slips, and local folks who weren’t as encumbered by delayed assignments as commuters were are probably the big losers out of the settlement.
TED74 is offline  
Old 07-27-2023, 01:58 PM
  #234  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,518
Default

Originally Posted by TED74
We got something…it’s just not something that was important to everyone. Plenty of commuters were rightfully ticked off that GS coverage moved so slowly and then transitioned into IAs that they couldn’t get the premium flying they were due nor track if the right person (or anyone) was paid appropriately. Even if you don’t commute, more foresight on green slip assignments can now make some rotations flyable that previously were not. That is what I see as the most valuable end state for the winners here (yes there are losers), with tracking and transparency being less meaningful. Those who previously scored IAs they never could have held as timely green slips, and local folks who weren’t as encumbered by delayed assignments as commuters were are probably the big losers out of the settlement.
I don't like calling them "losers." They are just no longer getting an unfair seniority multiplier over more senior commuters.
CBreezy is offline  
Old 07-27-2023, 02:05 PM
  #235  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,995
Default

Originally Posted by CBreezy
I don't like calling them "losers." They are just no longer getting an unfair seniority multiplier over more senior commuters.
Fair enough. While they may see it differently, I think you and I agree the settlement rectifies significant seniority abrogation across the seniority list and I consider that a win.
TED74 is offline  
Old 07-27-2023, 03:57 PM
  #236  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,535
Default

Originally Posted by 20Fathoms
Just one data point but scheduling seems to be getting more bold with their new 23M7 powers. Doing a red eye on a greenslip with a show just after midnight and scheduling straight up cold calls me during my pre red eye nap on my day off and leaves the following voice mail around 5pm:

”Hey looks like you raised your hand for a green slip later on, how would you like an assignment instead for an atlanta flight that leaves in 3 hours? Call us back if interested.”

First time ever at any airline that I’ve been cold called by scheduling to play “let’s make a deal.”
If this actually happened, please send me a PM. I'd like to pull the recording of it.
tunes is offline  
Old 07-27-2023, 03:58 PM
  #237  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,535
Default

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
Please write your Rep about this. ALPA needs to know.

It would appear this is actually a Green Slip with Conflict; 4x pay (and at least single pay for the pilot who should have gotten it) and ACE the crap out of it!!!! Then consider calling in for the FAR117 violation that this actually is & ASAP that.

Especially after the big concession we made to avoid this kind of thing.

If you don't mind telling us, what fleet and seat was this on?
a GSWC isn't 4x pay......
tunes is offline  
Old 07-27-2023, 04:08 PM
  #238  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
Default

Originally Posted by PilotJ3
Thats a part 117 violation. They cannot short your overnight, period.
I am not seeing the 117 violation. He was awarded a GS and they then called and tried to assign him a trip. They are allowed one call for things like this. The contractual implications would be interesting but I see no 117 issues.
sailingfun is offline  
Old 07-27-2023, 04:20 PM
  #239  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,535
Default

Originally Posted by sailingfun
I am not seeing the 117 violation. He was awarded a GS and they then called and tried to assign him a trip. They are allowed one call for things like this. The contractual implications would be interesting but I see no 117 issues.
it's not a 117 violation if a pilot had a shortened overnight but still legal prospective rest.
tunes is offline  
Old 07-27-2023, 04:32 PM
  #240  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2017
Position: 737 A
Posts: 1,032
Default

Originally Posted by tunes
it's not a 117 violation if a pilot had a shortened overnight but still legal prospective rest.
pretty sure they are “allowed” one attempt to contact during a rest period, but if they are playing with fire because a pilot could then not get enough rest before their FDP.
Vsop is online now  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Excargodog
COVID19
70
11-26-2021 08:01 AM
RBZL
Part 135
481
03-13-2020 10:02 AM
purplepilot
Cargo
35
09-13-2007 04:00 AM
HSLD
Major
0
11-18-2005 01:46 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices