GetRealDude

The truth hurts.
The TA allows a greater percentage of PBS style manipulation. No software can overcome it.
Approx. 70% of our crew force are commuters. I'm not on of them. But I respect anyone's decision to make that choice.
More VTOs and a greater impact on schedules is the result. More crewmembers affected than ever before. FACT.
Commuters will suffer at the whim of the futures scheduler. But at least you'll get a REASON for getting hosed. It won't change the schedule but you'll get a warm fuzzy on why you're being bent across the table.
No thanks. I'll pass on prison style forced coercion.

BlackKnight

About the best summation I've heard.

I do have concerns with unity. On many fronts. Before negotiations got serious. During. And either the fear I hear, or the really terrible attitude of "hey- I held off flying more than my schedule (legal and well done); if the no voters strike this down I'll fly everything I can to make up what I lost".

I voted no a week ago. I sure hope when this gets voted down we all get on board with securing a better contract for our team. I am.

kronan

Wow, our kind of trips result in the # 1 VTO Line getting R days. Has that happened, ever? In a normal bidpack?

Built in Seniority order. Hard for me to envision a month where the #1 VTO line holder was unable to build a month with only flying. Harder for me to envision CD signing off on software that defaults to filler R days just to screw over the senior VTO holders

IMO- borders on the same probability of my dating Kate Upton....but there's a chance

busdriver12

The vision of VTO's that you have, is VTO's built from the #1 guy on down, filling his or her requests first, then going on to the next person?

Unfortunately, I don't think that is the VTO system we have now, and it won't be the one after the TA. Just after the TA takes effect, contractual language has been deleted, and more reserve blocks will be in the system.

I don't think the VTO system will default to filler R days to screw over the senior VTO holders, but the deleted language does appear to make it an option. And that doesn't require CD to sign off on any software change at all.

The company could clear this up right now, if they wanted to. Or they could instantly clear it up if the TA is voted in, explain that reserve will still go junior first (unless requested), that nothing has changed.

Good luck with Kate Upton (whomever that is). Hopefully you aren't married, because that really messes up your chances.....

USMCFDX

Maybe you should read the TA. With language removed absolutely bar days can be used as filler for the #1 VTO. Do you have any friends with a PBS system at other airlines? You really are in the dark. I hope you read the rest of the TA.

CD doesn't have to sign off on anything, he doesn't have the final say.

Enjoy your date. I suggest you start with a good bottle of wine.

StarClipper

Wait a second I might be wrong but isn't CD the same MEC Chair which many on this forum trust and swore that he would not sent out a TA to vote on if it wasn't sufficient and met most of the basic request from your crew force. Now you want to bet that he would sign of on a software that would cause negative impact on your secondary lines. You my friend must be delusional

2cylinderdriver

Bar days! Who does not want those on a secondary?

The removal of the language that says lines are built with trips, until they can't, had to be modified if you want to allow secondary lines to voluntarily include reserve blocks. We already allow reserve to be involuntarily added to your secondary line and in some cases the current rules have really resulted in a negative outcome. At a road show one of the NC explained a situation in a small base (LAX I think) that the number 1 secondary wanted one 60 hour trip, the trip went way junior to him, why? Because current rules require the Company to build lines with ALL trips, until they can't. A 60 hour trip did not have any other trips that could be combined with it to make a line of all trips but there were plenty of trips to build the number one secondary a line with all trips (none that he wanted of course) and the 60 hour trip he wanted went to the first pilot they could not build all trips on his line.

Bottom line, our CBA requires secondary lines to be built in seniority order and using an archaic system that has middle managers between our inputs and the system. There should be zero fear that someone who wants only trips that you will still get all trips if that is what you preference (provided your seniority and the amount of trips match up, just like today). We are never going to go for a zero open time, global solution like other full bore PBS systems. We will have ALPA pilots in the mix and actual say into the system. How do you improve secondary lines without fixing the software?

Reserve days (RA days for the most part) are already rampant in the system so why not allow a senior pilot to select them, maybe they could not hold R24 and they now can grab that R24 line that another pilot conflicted out anyway? Same thing could be for the pilot that can't hold B reserve, so now they can bid secondary and likely pick some blocks up. Sure looks like a potential improvement, do you think the Company wants secondary lines to be worse ? How could they ever get full on PBS in the next bargaining?

StarClipper

And from what I understood if an agreement can't be reach, who has the final say? LMBO if you think that final say will ever be in your favor then you too are delusional

FDXLAG

Actually if an agreement can't be reached we keep our current really crappy program. What happens after an agreement is reached is what they are worried about.

CloudSailor

You're saying 'removal of the language' and 'modified' the language as if they were the same thing. They are not. The language was only REMOVED. It was not necessary for that language to be removed to add the flexibility they are seeking with SLR. It could have been MODIFIED. Or they could have removed the old language, and inserted language that states something to this effect: "unless specifically requested/waived by a pilot who could build a VTO line of pure trips, R days will NOT be placed on his line". Would that be hard to do? No. Does this open us up to having R days on our lines, even as senior VTO holders, when we don't want them there? Absolutely!