LEC rep who voted for MEMRAT might vote NO
#31
I sort of disagree on abdicating responsibility. If the TA was negotiated in a vacuum, yes. Since there were (I believe) nine meetings to give directions, and the NC was sent back (I'm told) three times to confirm no more funds, and no re-arranging of deck chairs, I think this was all there was to be had.
Carl
#32
I'm not hunting for yes votes. I understand. 23.G.5 is an issue I'm still quantifying. Right now I can account for up to about 2.76% of the trips going away for the most junior lineholder. Word is that UAL can only get about 35-40% of the stated benefit, because of various factors, so it could be closer to the 1-1.5% mark for the junior lineholder, less for the more senior. Still a philosophical problem in a category with a lot of training, and not at all in categories with no LCA's.
With turn high turnover upcoming and all the OE for all positions coming out of FO lines this is low for sure. The cascading affects will impact all of the bottom 75% of FOs. Combined with tightening reserves required formula, trip swaps and drops to try to mitigate the effect will be impossible. If the evaluation was with historical data we already know it is wrong.
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 133
This makes me sad. I would be the first to crack the whip on a POS (pilot or not) and DN is a good man. Our conversations from days before the TA to his endorsement leave me perplexed. Not sure *** happened in those final moments, just wish I couldve stared MD in the eyes when I grinned a no.
A rhetorical question, if everyone "trusted" DN, have you ever wondered why he voted to send it to the pilots? Have you asked him? If this is such a departure from what you expected, maybe it should be noted that he took an action contrary to what you expected, and maybe there's a really good reason for it. Might not be politics as some suggest.
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
It's not a philosophical problem. It's diminishing seniority. The reason it's FOs only is because captains, by knowledge of experience know how valuable seniority is. Where is the 2.76% number coming from?
With turn high turnover upcoming and all the OE for all positions coming out of FO lines this is low for sure. The cascading affects will impact all of the bottom 75% of FOs. Combined with tightening reserves required formula, trip swaps and drops to try to mitigate the effect will be impossible. If the evaluation was with historical data we already know it is wrong.
With turn high turnover upcoming and all the OE for all positions coming out of FO lines this is low for sure. The cascading affects will impact all of the bottom 75% of FOs. Combined with tightening reserves required formula, trip swaps and drops to try to mitigate the effect will be impossible. If the evaluation was with historical data we already know it is wrong.
I'll quote from another thread, below, to explain how I got to the numbers. Since that time, I've heard that there are a bunch of restrictions that make the number smaller. For example, you can't use it to train across bases. It's based on block hours, not trips. Credit time decreases that number. I'm told UAL should have an easier time than Delta to maximize their 75% of OE trips, since they pull the trips before any bidding occurs (no FO's can bid the trips at all), and still they can only get about 35-40% of the "benefit".
As for your point that the numbers will increase with more retirements, my thinking is that the average % across the entire airline could do that, but I can't see us doing much more training in the NB than 100+/month. Purely a guess on my part, but I imagine as more people move up into WB due to attrition, they get to see changes too, offset by the WB growth.
I've previously quoted the 2% number, with the caveat I haven't verified it. I think it's possible, but my own napkin math is a little different, closer to the 3%.
My info is that we have 435 LCA's, 35 are on special projects, so 400 flying.
50% of their work is OE.
I'm assuming 6,400 FO's.
I'm assuming 15% on Reserve > 5,440 line-holding FO's.
I'm not accounting for FO's not flying, such as sick or MLOA at all.
I'm not accounting for LCA's on Reserve.
I'm going to pretend time and pilots are the same thing for now, although the TA deals in time, so I'm going to say 50% of 400 LCA used for OE like 200 LCA's worth of flying.
200 FO's worth of FO's flying with LCA's is 200/5,440= 3.67% of FO time.
25% of that time is safe, so 75% on the block is 2.76%
There are a number of factors that make this number smaller, so maybe the 2% is totally valid, but 2.76% is what's in my mind. That's the upper end effect I envision for the bottom-line holder and below: 2.76% of the time could be gone.
As you move up the list, depending on whether the guy is above or below LCA's, and how you rank trip quality, some % < 2.76% of the time, on average across categories, is gone.
My info is that we have 435 LCA's, 35 are on special projects, so 400 flying.
50% of their work is OE.
I'm assuming 6,400 FO's.
I'm assuming 15% on Reserve > 5,440 line-holding FO's.
I'm not accounting for FO's not flying, such as sick or MLOA at all.
I'm not accounting for LCA's on Reserve.
I'm going to pretend time and pilots are the same thing for now, although the TA deals in time, so I'm going to say 50% of 400 LCA used for OE like 200 LCA's worth of flying.
200 FO's worth of FO's flying with LCA's is 200/5,440= 3.67% of FO time.
25% of that time is safe, so 75% on the block is 2.76%
There are a number of factors that make this number smaller, so maybe the 2% is totally valid, but 2.76% is what's in my mind. That's the upper end effect I envision for the bottom-line holder and below: 2.76% of the time could be gone.
As you move up the list, depending on whether the guy is above or below LCA's, and how you rank trip quality, some % < 2.76% of the time, on average across categories, is gone.
It gets better. The total potential efficiencies available under 23.G.5 are 112 jobs, assuming that they get the full impact (not likely), and that there are no trips available for the people whose trip is dropped (not likely at all). The total number of E190's on order is 20, but in order to reach their 76-seat numbers, it needs to be 50. At 7 crews per plane, that's 140-350 additional captain jobs.
Maybe 23.G.5 can't be looked at in a vacuum, but as a shift of incentives for FO's. The net seems to favor FO's, surprisingly. How surprising is that, for a philosophical point?
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Posts: 367
I am NOT accusing anyone in particular but I find it intriguing that ALPA National keeps an offshore bank account. This opens the door to influence from so many different directions.
As far as a rep pushing a TA to memrat but voting in the other direction? Maybe based on the emails he received this TA offered what those in his inbox asked for-- the squeaky wheel gets the grease. After all, he cannot really vote and represent the average pilot because we all have our own criteria. Perhaps the TA matched up with the survey better than it did not, a fuzzy line for sure. Despite being a solid NO himself the ultimate decision belongs to a democracy; that is the DN I think I know. If he is publicly stating this is his position than I am 100% sure that is the case.
Voted NO btw and a buddy of mine who knows the fTSquared said he voted NO as well. Not even T is up for another scope sale job, SEA not a hug. YGTBSM.
As far as a rep pushing a TA to memrat but voting in the other direction? Maybe based on the emails he received this TA offered what those in his inbox asked for-- the squeaky wheel gets the grease. After all, he cannot really vote and represent the average pilot because we all have our own criteria. Perhaps the TA matched up with the survey better than it did not, a fuzzy line for sure. Despite being a solid NO himself the ultimate decision belongs to a democracy; that is the DN I think I know. If he is publicly stating this is his position than I am 100% sure that is the case.
Voted NO btw and a buddy of mine who knows the fTSquared said he voted NO as well. Not even T is up for another scope sale job, SEA not a hug. YGTBSM.
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 121
The two percent number is the lowest end of the range. And thus shows the lowest impact. I ask what base did they use, what month, what year. No one knows. They calculated that number and then applied it to the m88. That's a deceptive tactic.
I did an analysis of the max impact to my category. 717. I assumed that all trips by lca will be used for training. I know it's an assumption but that's the max. And when we retire 800 a year I bet we use it all or why does the company want them as an lca.
My analysis shows it affected 10.7 percent of lines projected for July. About 19 lines. That's the max impact and a lot more than two percent. Plus don't get me started on the effects on line construction.
I did an analysis of the max impact to my category. 717. I assumed that all trips by lca will be used for training. I know it's an assumption but that's the max. And when we retire 800 a year I bet we use it all or why does the company want them as an lca.
My analysis shows it affected 10.7 percent of lines projected for July. About 19 lines. That's the max impact and a lot more than two percent. Plus don't get me started on the effects on line construction.
#38
The two percent number is the lowest end of the range. And thus shows the lowest impact. I ask what base did they use, what month, what year. No one knows. They calculated that number and then applied it to the m88. That's a deceptive tactic.
I did an analysis of the max impact to my category. 717. I assumed that all trips by lca will be used for training. I know it's an assumption but that's the max. And when we retire 800 a year I bet we use it all or why does the company want them as an lca.
My analysis shows it affected 10.7 percent of lines projected for July. About 19 lines. That's the max impact and a lot more than two percent. Plus don't get me started on the effects on line construction.
I did an analysis of the max impact to my category. 717. I assumed that all trips by lca will be used for training. I know it's an assumption but that's the max. And when we retire 800 a year I bet we use it all or why does the company want them as an lca.
My analysis shows it affected 10.7 percent of lines projected for July. About 19 lines. That's the max impact and a lot more than two percent. Plus don't get me started on the effects on line construction.
I do agree that taking the company wide average of 2% and applying it to a category that is likely to bear a disproportionately high share of the impact like the MD-88 is a bit disingenuous- especially if you just cast a fleet wide net like the MEC did in the TA FAQ email. For example- the MSP 88 guys are likely to have almost no effects from this (until new hires get md-88 MSP anyway), but NYC 88 will be in "maximum training mode" for the forseeable future. I think there are valid ways to accurately show how this will impact guys, but this aint it.
#39
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: 7th green
Posts: 4,378
If that's true, the MEC should have voted NO and returned it to the NC with specific instructions about why the TA was unacceptable.
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 129
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post