Originally Posted by gloopy

There's a lot of truth in all that. There is no doubt that productivity is the lifeblood of capitalism. We can't just go around demanding massive additional staffing for the same amount of flying. Triple dip scams look great on paper but they are the dumbest ways possible to bargain for our piece of the pie, or to even define the size of that piece to begin with. It boggles my mind when pilots think we can get some triple dipping touch drop vacation or OE release scam yet don't think that same effort should instead go to improved vacation credit for everyone and agressively going after flying/scope/JV's etc as well as greatly improving rigs across the board that allow and encourage us to be productive but in a way that benefits us more.

Back to the original point, gate latency efforts will likely eliminate at least a couple hundred jobs once the new block times are averaged into the system in a year or so, espeically as we transition to more short haul/high cycle flying where that effort is more often a factor. By then we may or may not be hiring, but even if we are it will be less. Once that plank is nailed firmly in place, watch for an effort to go to wheel spin, etc. To avoid D-0 being trashed, it will just become SOP to push D minus X minutes. Problem solved, pilot block hours take another hit.

Originally Posted by Timbo

The right seat is pretty easy to figure, what number and where is the most junior pilot on our list right now? Is he/she on the DC9, or MD88? If they are on the 9 right now, and all the 9 pilots are being displaced in this bid, then I would guess the most junior 9 pilot will now be the most junior 717 pilot.

If instead, the most junior pilot on our list is on the MD88, some of the 9 pilots could go there and bump them off, to bottom of the 717. Either way, I think the 'new bottom' will be the 717, as it's the lowest paying we have.

The left seat will be harder to figure, because some pretty senior guys may bid it, just to be in the top 5, or 10, or what have you, and/or LCA wannabees. But the bottom of the left seat should go very junior, for the same reasons as the bottom on the right seat.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

Here's a reenactment of Flight with sock puppets:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

I was talking to a 73N B buddy of mine today and guess what he brought up out of the blue? 73N A's he has flown with have said "you know, I'm thinking of bidding the 717A. It'd be nice to get a summer off and then I'd be senior and could make it all back up on GSs and good lines."

That could make for a big uh oh...

Originally Posted by Sink r8

I agree. Constructive engagement is not a bad practice; it just shouldn't be turned into submissive compliance. We are displaying a remarkably passive approach to unilateral changes to our compensation. The manner in which out times is being computed is being changed, and all I've seen so far is discussions about a resolution (did one pass?).

A huge backlog of grievances that will never go anywhere is nothing to brag about, but why don't we have occasional disagreements? If we don't view a change to the status quo on pay calculations as a reason to disagree, then when will we react?

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

I need a distraction from waiting for the award.

Here, let's try a song:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

I was talking to a 73N B buddy of mine today and guess what he brought up out of the blue? 73N A's he has flown with have said "you know, I'm thinking of bidding the 717A. It'd be nice to get a summer off and then I'd be senior and could make it all back up on GSs and good lines."

That could make for a big uh oh...

Originally Posted by scambo1

At least someone has their eyes open. I'm bumping this because it seems like the union is looking for ways to defend company practices rather than defend the pilots affected.

Originally Posted by Sink r8

I agree. Constructive engagement is not a bad practice; it just shouldn't be turned into submissive compliance. We are displaying a remarkably passive approach to unilateral changes to our compensation. The manner in which out times is being computed is being changed, and all I've seen so far is discussions about a resolution (did one pass?).

A huge backlog of grievances that will never go anywhere is nothing to brag about, but why don't we have occasional disagreements? If we don't view a change to the status quo on pay calculations as a reason to disagree, then when will we react?