Raptor

I haven't looked at the grievance settlement. Do you have a link to it? I'd be interested to compare. Changed wording...I don't like that...opens up the section to abuse for reasons I've previously stated.

CloudSailor

Definition of known and confirmed?

Definition of reasonably practical?

Opener - to have clear, unambiguous language... FAIL.

FDXLAG

Don't forget "IS" that is in there to.

Raptor

It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

I saw what you did there!

busdriver12

Good information here. Thanks for the explanations, so I didn't have to dig it up. One consideration, is if they make every VTO with reserve in it carryover reserve, and every reserve line a carryover, there are going to be a lot more trips open the first week of the bid month. There are always far more trips open the first week of the bid month right now. This equates to extra trips to fill in the secondary line process, so less reserve assigned. Also with carryover, one can select min days off to be honored, so will they really want a huge number of people on reserve on the carryover to the next month (and some of those people will have already hit their max RLG and can't be assigned a trip), or will they want reserve to be spread out over the month evenly? It doesn't seem that helpful if everyone is on reserve the first week.

Raptor

I think you're correct in that my example was extreme and would not be fully beneficial to the company.

What I would think likely is for the company to move a short way in the direction I gave, as they will be able to get slightly more numbers of VTO lines.

A little tweak here and there will give them 5-10% more VTO lines pretty easily--over what we have now. That doesn't include the 20% of reserve lines that would go away with the corresponding growth in secondary lines either.

The TA will bring a greater number of pilots under a new generation PBS system than we have now under the poorly run VTO system.

CloudSailor

And our line in the sand?!?!? What happened? This opens the door for PBS in a way that will have the company hardball for it to be implemented system wide in 2021. If we roll over now, won't we then?

Why wasn't language developed in these 4 years? Why wasn't software tested? Why were VTO lines not improved to show some good will and trust building? This is insane.

Many of those arguing for the TA as this is the best we will get, we might as well take it now, etc... won't be around for what this will do to our QOL.

Get the vendor, software, parameters, penalties, and language governing all of those developed first, THEN include in the TA, so that we know what we are voting on.

I guess we only respect the company's line in the sand, but are happy to let them cross our's.

Raptor

I absolutely agree. I don't buy a new car then ask the price. I don't want to pass a TA with a black box for the Secondary Line Working Group. I understand that it must be agreed to by the MEC Chairman or not implemented, but it's such a significant item that I think it should be LOA voted on by the entire pilot group. And the final arbiter once it is up and running is the company. We've seen how well that works when we have disputed pairings up for review.

Other airlines, even in bankruptcy have page after page in their contracts spelling out how their PBS system works. It was voted on by the pilots (under threat, but voted on none-the-less). JetBlue has PBS, but the company says here's what we want flown and the UNION controls it all. The company has been showing us for years that we're just a cost center and I can't understand why this part of the TA isn't drawing more scrutiny?

busdriver12

I agree. The end product should be an LOA that we get to vote for. I don't know why the union can't do something like that anyways, figure out the final product, and before they actually agree to it, submit it to us for a vote. Seems like that ought to be required, to ask us our opinion before we are stuck with something significant, forever.

Perhaps because it's all rather vague, the union in the end, can decide to not agree to do it before the implementation period (at least that's how I read it). It also seems like this could take a long time to figure out, so it is not in the near horizon. Plus, how it is presented is that it is better than the crappy system we have now. It sounds rather nebulous as it stands.

CloudSailor

Nebulous for sure. Just like:

-lay flat seat will satisfy all higher class requirements in this section.

-the unknown costs that will have the new 10% max year over year in medical.

-company jumpseat language from an arbitration now in the main body of the CBA, with new language and definitions.

I could go on, but most who have researched are aware of the vague language that, WITHOUT TRUST, due to past practices, is concerning.